News America's aversion to socialism ?

[apeiron]

If making money in a mutually beneficial business transaction is "at your expense," then the kid who bags my groceries is also making his money at my expense...how dare he!

How is this relevant to the point about business monopolies?

Unless there is some weird doublethink going on, where it is bad for a single state entity to own the means of production, but good for a single private corporation to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see any mention made of monopolies.

 

[russ_watters]

...and actually, there is a pretty big flaw in the idea that guys like Gates got rich from the profits of their companies (and thus a pretty big flaw in the common criticism of them). It's really mostly false: Gates is rich mostly because as a founder of MS, he was a large shareholder. Most of his money came from him selling his share of the company to 3rd party investors, not from the money MS collected from its customers.

 

[dacruick]

Most of his money came from him selling his share of the company to 3rd party investors, not from the money MS collected from its customers.

I don't think this is entirely true since a company's sales heavily factors into how much a company is worth. But I also don't think that it matters which way you look at it. Bill Gates is rich because you and I bought his stuff. Warren Buffet is rich for the same reason. These people are rich because they've provided a service or product to the market that millions of people deem worth their money.

 

[ThomasT]

If making money in a mutually beneficial business transaction is "at your expense," then the kid who bags my groceries is also making his money at my expense...how dare he!

I wasn't attaching any negative connotation (like, eg., Microsoft's, arguably, monopolistic strivings) to "at your expense". I've bought Microsoft products, therefore Microsoft has profited at my expense (ie., via the expenditure of some of my disposable income). Bill Gates has benefitted, albeit indirectly, from my purchases of Microsoft products, as have all of Microsoft's employees, utility providers, creditors, etc. The Publix bag boys/girls, and cashiers and managers, etc. have also benefitted, indirectly, and at my expense, from my patronage of that grocery store. (And, I've benefitted from Microsoft products, at Microsoft's expense, and from Publix products, at Publix's expense, and so on.) That's all I meant.

 

[dacruick]

I wasn't attaching any negative connotation (like, eg., Microsoft's, arguably, monopolistic strivings) to "at your expense". I've bought Microsoft products, therefore Microsoft has profited at my expense (ie., via the expenditure of some of my disposable income). Bill Gates has benefitted, albeit indirectly, from my purchases of Microsoft products, as have all of Microsoft's employees, utility providers, creditors, etc. The Publix bag boys/girls, and cashiers and managers, etc. have also benefitted, indirectly, and at my expense, from my patronage of that grocery store. (And, I've benefitted from Microsoft products, at Microsoft's expense, and from Publix products, at Publix's expense, and so on.) That's all I meant.

That's a fair and true statement. Although, You should be aware that the phrase "at my expense" has an intrinsic negative connotation to it.

 

[ThomasT]

Regarding business/corporate monopolies, it seems that they can be a good or a bad thing for the general population. Like dictatorships, or kingdoms or other more or less totalitarian setups. It depends, to a certain extent, on the king or the dictator or the ceo, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the time they tend to be just as greedy and petty as the rest of us. The good thing about representative (of the general population) governments (including socialist ones) is that there's a way to nonviolently address unnecessarily gross inequalities and abuses of power. And while it's difficult to identify any government as being truly representative of the general population, there nevertheless have been some important laws passed restricting monopolies.

I don't like to imagine what the world would be like without governmental constraints.

Whether full out socialism is ever necessary is arguable. But I think that a complex world of 6 billion plus (and steadily increasing) people without a fairly large measure of governmental intervention would be 'messy' to say the least, and a very bad state of affairs for the majority of people in it.

 

[ThomasT]

That's a fair and true statement. Although, You should be aware that the phrase "at my expense" has an intrinsic negative connotation to it.

Point taken, and hopefully I'll be aware of that from now on. I say "hopefully" because I'm 64 and I think I've forgotten lots of stuff.

I should also note that it's important not to read anything into (ie., attach connotations that aren't explicitly stated to) what people say ... even though it seems, and probably is, sometimes necessary to do that to get at the truth (the 'intention') of a statement.

 

[dacruick]

Point taken, and hopefully I'll be aware of that from now on. I say "hopefully" because I'm 64 and I think I've forgotten lots of stuff.

I should also note that it's important not to read anything into (ie., attach connotations that aren't explicitly stated to) what people say ... even though it seems, and probably is, sometimes necessary to do that to get at the truth (the 'intention') of a statement.

You know, now that I read back I realize that it wasn't even you who said that he was rich at your expense, you just agreed with the statement. Maybe others including myself made a couple of unnecessary assumptions

 

[ThomasT]

You know, now that I read back I realize that it wasn't even you who said that he was rich at your expense, you just agreed with the statement. Maybe others including myself made a couple of unnecessary assumptions

I think your point, as communicated to me, was/is essentially correct. The phrase "at my/your/someone's expense" has a generally negative connotation -- and I should have been aware of that, and phrased my response more carefully/clearly.

 

[ParticleGrl]

So, Bill Gates is rich at your expense? Or did you have zero benefit from his company's inventions?

No, but Leo Apotheker is very much richer at my expense. For destroying 40% of my investment in HP with some truly terrible decisions, he was compensated several million, including a 2 million "performance bonus." When the rich fail, and destroy the value of their corporation, they get richer. Ebbers and Lay got richer at my expense, partially through fraud Dick Fuld got very much rich at my expense.

If we move on from things that DIRECTLY hit me, Several different corporate raiders got rich on the backs of America's retirees when they gutted pensions to pay off leveraged debt or to pad earnings reports (see Schultz's book retirement heist). Nathan Myhrvold is now getting richer at everyone's expense by using overly-broad patents to extract money from productive companies.

Not everyone who gets rich does it by producing useful things (or anything really). A lot seem to do it by looting successful companies (extracting economic rents, in economist speak). What is a golden parachute if not a way to enrich an executive who fails at the expense of the company?

 

[fleem]

I've been away from this thread for some time, so forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Firstly, I've noticed Sweden is frequently used as an example of socialism that breeds wealth. Actually according to every metric I could find, Sweden is one of the least socialist countries economically. Its socialism is almost exclusively non-economic. It is very much an outlier, and thus referenced frequently by socialists that ignore statistics. But I repeat myself.

Secondly, a few minutes of research shows the clear inverse correlation between economic freedom and poverty level. Just google together phrases like 'correlation', 'economic freedom', 'country', and 'poverty'. Here's a good starting point:

http://www.economypolitics.com/2009/12/first-annual-economypolitics-global_18.html

If these statistics are all biased, then find some that aren't!

Fourthly, speaking of correlations, I see a clear correlation in this thread of those defending socialism with a preference of anecdotes over statistics.

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it so difficult to realize boycotting gives the people far more power than do ballots? And then why is it so difficult to realize moving power from corrupt industrialists to corrupt politicians also takes power away from the people? If you don't like big industry, then start buying your food from local farmers. Its not that hard. If a mere ten percent of the people moved ten percent of their business to local companies, Monsanto, Haliburton, et al would be hurting in a notable way. Do you really think voting for one of two politicians chosen by the system is so much more effective than boycotting, that it makes boycotting a waste of time? Or do you socialists really put your heart where your hand is and boycott? I doubt you do. Try boycotting the government for not delivering the services you paid for and see how soon their thugs will be at your door. Government can prevent Haliburton thugs from coming to your door, but it won't stop its own thugs coming to your door. The reason is that Government is a big business, and its big because it need not obey any laws. There is a tremendous amount of wealth to be made through government via many channels, including loan interest. Or do you really think the U.S. government has been obeying the Constitution lately?

 

[WhoWee]

No, but Leo Apotheker is very much richer at my expense. For destroying 40% of my investment in HP with some truly terrible decisions, he was compensated several million, including a 2 million "performance bonus." When the rich fail, and destroy the value of their corporation, they get richer. Ebbers and Lay got richer at my expense, partially through fraud Dick Fuld got very much rich at my expense.

If we move on from things that DIRECTLY hit me, Several different corporate raiders got rich on the backs of America's retirees when they gutted pensions to pay off leveraged debt or to pad earnings reports (see Schultz's book retirement heist). Nathan Myhrvold is now getting richer at everyone's expense by using overly-broad patents to extract money from productive companies.

Not everyone who gets rich does it by producing useful things (or anything really). A lot seem to do it by looting successful companies (extracting economic rents, in economist speak). What is a golden parachute if not a way to enrich an executive who fails at the expense of the company?

Sorry to hear about your difficulties - at least you came out a winner as a GM Bondholder.

 

[ginru]

Fourthly, speaking of correlations, I see a clear correlation in this thread of those defending socialism with a preference of anecdotes over statistics.

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it so difficult to realize boycotting gives the people far more power than do ballots? And then why is it so difficult to realize moving power from corrupt industrialists to corrupt politicians also takes power away from the people? If you don't like big industry, then start buying your food from local farmers. Its not that hard. If a mere ten percent of the people moved ten percent of their business to local companies, Monsanto, Haliburton, et al would be hurting in a notable way. Do you really think voting for one of two politicians chosen by the system is so much more effective than boycotting, that it makes boycotting a waste of time? Or do you socialists really put your heart where your hand is and boycott? I doubt you do. Try boycotting the government for not delivering the services you paid for and see how soon their thugs will be at your door. Government can prevent Haliburton thugs from coming to your door, but it won't stop its own thugs coming to your door. The reason is that Government is a big business, and its big because it need not obey any laws. There is a tremendous amount of wealth to be made through government via many channels, including loan interest. Or do you really think the U.S. government has been obeying the Constitution lately?

I think socialists would prefer the use of organized labor unions as a means of counterbalancing the corporate influence in government, and likewise doing it through lobbying. Perhaps the problem is that unions didn't seem to evolve and adapt to the global market or do enough to block the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which thus limited the unions' empowerment of the underclass here.

You mentioned "boycotts" and someone said earlier how socialists should be trying to "abolish" the federal government. These stances, IMO, are overly aggressive in tone. Going with the family model mentioned earlier, I see socialism as ideally thriving more in the homemaker role. Being outwardly aggressive doesn't suit its true potential as that invites conflict with the breadwinners of outside businesses.

They should instead favor the cooperative approach of forming consumer unions that encourage local job growth by only purchasing from businesses that hire and invest in their communities. Granted this may still be interpreted as a boycott, but if so then that would be an antagonistic view that would breed resentment. Rather, it needs to be played up as a mobilized incentive for businesses to spend more on job creation and local investment. Then expand that kind of community empowerment system by networking it as a provincial, national and then global movement. When people (regardless of their politics) become too aggressive in pushing their agenda through forceful methods then that runs the risk of everything falling apart through unnecessary conflicts.

In my view, the underlying problem in this country/world is that we have too many breadwinner mindsets competing for resources, money and power, but not enough homemaker mindsets to know how we can effectively share these things. Instead everything is seen as a war, rivalry, debate or contest. For a family, it would be like an unnecessary battle of the sexes that destroys overall confidence in the relationships.

Now I know everything I say is just based on observational logic instead of a carefully composed collection of charts, graphs and stats. So yeah, I probably fit the criticism that you had for socialists. But for me personally, I believe in finding a functional Balance and drawing inspiration from natural models that have stood the test of time, as in the family model that has been a useful building block for organized society.

 

[Alfi]

In my view, the underlying problem in this country/world is that we have too many breadwinner mindsets competing for resources, money and power, but not enough homemaker mindsets to know how we can effectively share these things. Instead everything is seen as a war, rivalry, debate or contest.

I agree with the view.
but ...

we have too many breadwinner mindsets competing for resources,

but not enough homemaker mindsets to know how we can effectively share these things.

what would be a good ratio. ??

 

[ginru]

what would be a good ratio. ??

I don't know if there's a fixed ratio as these roles can be mixed and overlapped among various individuals in a group, but I figure it all comes down to balancing the availability of resources with an optimal use/need/distribution per person. If there is plenty for everyone then everybody's happy, of course. But if money/jobs are scarce, then we need innovation and effective management wrt Cooperative Sharing in order to avoid social fractures from competing for those limited resources.

Perhaps we've grown too dependent on the government for this particular role, but evolving it from the family model I'd think this would functionally fall on the homemaker as the nurturer of community relationships through which we can share/optimize given resources.

But that brings up a good point though. It's easy to quantify the breadwinner's skill as we simply just count the money, but how to measure the effectiveness of the homemaker (or community builder)? Maybe we simply don't value this enough if we have no agreed metric for it (except for Time, of course).

Perhaps it's our aversion to socialism that makes us not want to approach Cooperation with the same eagerness, vigor and innovation that we have for Competition. This nurturing of human relationships is what we desperately need in our politics, foreign policy, marriages, race relations, etc... but instead we seem more prone to waging war on each other.

 

[ginru]

I came across an interesting article on the historical usefulness of fraternal societies for helping the underclass, particularly in regards to health care...

http://praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f12l3.html"

*********************************
"In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company..."
*****************************

This seems similar to what I mentioned wrt localized empowerment for struggling people through something like community unions. Perhaps socialist movements in the US would serve their cause best through taking things back to this kind of model instead of through Big Government.

 

[WhoWee]

I came across an interesting article on the historical usefulness of fraternal societies for helping the underclass, particularly in regards to health care...

http://praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f12l3.html"

*********************************
"In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the primary sources of health care and health insurance for the working poor in Britain, Australia, and the United States was the fraternal society. Fraternal societies (called "friendly societies" in Britain and Australia) were voluntary mutual-aid associations. Their descendants survive among us today in the form of the Shriners, Elks, Masons, and similar organizations, but these no longer play the central role in American life they formerly did. As recently as 1920, over one-quarter of all adult Americans were members of fraternal societies. (The figure was still higher in Britain and Australia.) Fraternal societies were particularly popular among blacks and immigrants. (Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt's famous attack on "hyphenated Americans" was motivated in part by hostility to the immigrants' fraternal societies; he and other Progressives sought to "Americanize" immigrants by making them dependent for support on the democratic state, rather than on their own independent ethnic communities.)

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company..."
*****************************

This seems similar to what I mentioned wrt localized empowerment for struggling people through something like community unions. Perhaps socialist movements in the US would serve their cause best through taking things back to this kind of model instead of through Big Government.

Haven't unions taken the place of the fraternal societies (as described) in your post - with the exception they control (and limit) the members life with respect to employment and political choices?

 

[ginru]

Haven't unions taken the place of the fraternal societies (as described) in your post - with the exception they control (and limit) the members life with respect to employment and political choices?

I feel those labor unions took an antagonistic approach to business through strikes, lobbying, etc. Engaging in an aggressive relationship with capitalists who thrive on competition is a tough task unless you can evolve, expand and adapt as quickly as your rival. I'm no expert but it seems like the socialist-minded groups have been licked by legislated union-busting while altogether being circumvented by businesses that adapted to the global market fastest through outsourcing.

What I personally wish to see is them focus on the cooperative approach. Don't declare war on Corporate America as that just picks another losing fight. Instead, take a softer approach by organizing grassroots community unions or societies that focus on the local growth of economy and empowerment for the underclass through mutual-supportive relationships. *Passively* reduce the role of Big Government by simply taking upon the responsibilities of self-policing and self-development of these communities and then expanding this as a global network. Collaborate with business to create jobs through incentives rather than threats.

So it shouldn't be an ideological war since at their best, capitalism and socialism should be ideal partners for comprehensive human prosperity. Or in the words of Rocky Balboa, "She's got gaps, I got gaps, together we fill gaps."

 

[WhoWee]

I feel those labor unions took an antagonistic approach to business through strikes, lobbying, etc. Engaging in an aggressive relationship with capitalists who thrive on competition is a tough task unless you can evolve, expand and adapt as quickly as your rival. I'm no expert but it seems like the socialist-minded groups have been licked by legislated union-busting while altogether being circumvented by businesses that adapted to the global market fastest through outsourcing.

What I personally wish to see is them focus on the cooperative approach. Don't declare war on Corporate America as that just picks another losing fight. Instead, take a softer approach by organizing grassroots community unions or societies that focus on the local growth of economy and empowerment for the underclass through mutual-supportive relationships. *Passively* reduce the role of Big Government by simply taking upon the responsibilities of self-policing and self-development of these communities and then expanding this as a global network. Collaborate with business to create jobs through incentives rather than threats.

So it shouldn't be an ideological war since at their best, capitalism and socialism should be ideal partners for comprehensive human prosperity. Or in the words of Rocky Balboa, "She's got gaps, I got gaps, together we fill gaps."

If you take a look at the Rhode Island thread, and discussions of the auto company (GM and Chrysler union/pension) bailouts, along with the Wisconsin thread and the post office thread - the merged interests of big Government and Big Unions might come into focus.

 

[ginru]

If you take a look at the Rhode Island thread, and discussions of the auto company (GM and Chrysler union/pension) bailouts, along with the Wisconsin thread and the post office thread - the merged interests of big Government and Big Unions might come into focus.

And during the Bush Administration, it was the Left rallying against Big Brother Government which the neocons didn't seem to have a problem with. Each side sees the government as a corrupt tool manipulated by their rival. Fight fire with fire, as usual. It's all justified by the belief that Sacrifice is necessary for Security, but both sides define Security differently. The Left favors entitlements and safety nets for the underclass. The Right prefers National Defense.

Your focus (blame Obama, blame liberals, blame unions) isn't going to bring the country together. If the fractures continue and faith in the system collapses, then it's natural for the underclass to do their own brand of outsourcing through criminal economies. At that point, we're all screwed and conservatives may then welcome Big Government in the form of a Police state (for the good of our security, of course ).

I prefer we move away from the usual blame game and work towards alternative solutions. For example, in the case of over-budget entitlement costs, we could transfer this to a localized, virtual credit network. Entities like community unions could work with local companies (creating jobs) to then manage it through a variety of innovative recruitment, distribution, marketing and service methods (thus enabling benefits while limiting expenses). Get the entitlement receivers, government, unions, businesses all working together to find compromised solutions that serve everyone's interests. This should be workable when executed effectively and with technology to minimize costs. But it requires a healthy degree of trust and cooperation which are in short supply these days.

 

[WhoWee]

And during the Bush Administration, it was the Left rallying against Big Brother Government which the neocons didn't seem to have a problem with. Each side sees the government as a corrupt tool manipulated by their rival. Fight fire with fire, as usual. It's all justified by the belief that Sacrifice is necessary for Security, but both sides define Security differently. The Left favors entitlements and safety nets for the underclass. The Right prefers National Defense.

Your focus (blame Obama, blame liberals, blame unions) isn't going to bring the country together. If the fractures continue and faith in the system collapses, then it's natural for the underclass to do their own brand of outsourcing through criminal economies. At that point, we're all screwed and conservatives may then welcome Big Government in the form of a Police state (for the good of our security, of course ).

I prefer we move away from the usual blame game and work towards alternative solutions. For example, in the case of over-budget entitlement costs, we could transfer this to a localized, virtual credit network. Entities like community unions could work with local companies (creating jobs) to then manage it through a variety of innovative recruitment, distribution, marketing and service methods (thus enabling benefits while limiting expenses). Get the entitlement receivers, government, unions, businesses all working together to find compromised solutions that serve everyone's interests. This should be workable when executed effectively and with technology to minimize costs. But it requires a healthy degree of trust and cooperation which are in short supply these days.

We might also abolish all public sector unions and re-evaluate every dollar spent by Government.

 

[ginru]

We might also abolish all public sector unions and re-evaluate every dollar spent by Government.

1) Abolish Public Sector Unions

Personally, I'd be in favor of this if you dropped the word "abolish" and replaced it with something more amicably constructive like "transfer their functional purpose to community unions or localized mutual-support societies". If not, then...

2) Re-evaluate every dollar spent by Government

...Then someone on the Left may simply interpret this next step as your way of forcing welfare recipients to eat cake while fattening the wallets of Defense contractors and giving tax cuts to the rich. At this point, there is no "We" anymore. Rather, the Left would circle the wagons and fight tooth-and-nail to obstruct your side.

 

[WhoWee]

1) Abolish Public Sector Unions

Personally, I'd be in favor of this if you dropped the word "abolish" and replaced it with something more amicably constructive like "transfer their functional purpose to community unions or localized mutual-support societies". If not, then...

2) Re-evaluate every dollar spent by Government

...Then someone on the Left may simply interpret this next step as your way of forcing welfare recipients to eat cake while fattening the wallets of Defense contractors and giving tax cuts to the rich. At this point, there is no "We" anymore. Rather, the Left would circle the wagons and fight tooth-and-nail to obstruct your side.

1.) I abhor political correctness.
2.) It appears the wagons are circled in your post?

 

[ginru]

1.) I abhor political correctness.
2.) It appears the wagons are circled in your post?

1. Then embrace the repercussions.
2. Nope, but if I see two boys in the sandbox slugging it out over a toy, I simply question why the parents didn't teach them the joys of sharing.

 

[WhoWee]

1. Then embrace the repercussions.
2. Nope, but if I see two boys in the sandbox slugging it out over a toy, I simply question why the parents didn't teach them the joys of sharing.

In this conversation, the repercussions are clarity. As for the joys of sharing - is it better to give or receive - what is your experience?

 

[WhoWee]

I had a coffee from a shopping mall food court kiosk this morning. Three young men sat down at the table next to me - 2 of them were "working" - the third was in the mall looking for employment. He was very angry.

Apparently, he had been working in a small business that closed down. One of the fellows asked why he wasn't happy - that he's entitled to unemployment (as if he'd won the lottery). The fellow then started swearing and calling the business owner names - ranting about how he was a no-good crook, etc. (because the owner didn't pay unemployment taxes). The third fellow then asked how much he had been making an hour.

The fellow explained he was paid $8.00 per hour - to which both fellows said that was good and why did they close, and what was wrong with the owner (not paying into unemployment) - lot's of questions.

When the fellow explained - I laughed out loud and nearly spilled my coffee. The owner had been paying "under the table" - not taking taxes out or paying them into the system - so the young fellow could take more money home. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough business and the owner closed (hung a for sale sign) when he found a job.

The young fellow said it wasn't fair to him. He also didn't appreciate my laughter much and quickly walked away after telling me so - and hearing my response (louder laughter). I think his friends might have actually understood the irony of his anger - given they indicated working for minimum wage with taxes deducted. I bought them each a coffee and went to my appointment across the street.

 

[ginru]

In this conversation, the repercussions are clarity. As for the joys of sharing - is it better to give or receive - what is your experience?

In my experience it's not really about the giving or receiving, but rather the peace you find in between. But when one sees the world as just Black vs. White, then peace is never possible in their constant war for clarity. It's either with us or against us.

 

[WhoWee]

In my experience it's not really about the giving or receiving, but rather the peace you find in between. But when one sees the world as just Black vs. White, then peace is never possible in their constant war for clarity. It's either with us or against us.

Not when it's a matter of giving (your) or receiving (someone else's) cash money.

 

[fleem]

And so we continue to see discussions of anecdotes used to smother the fact that every last statistical study of any repute ever performed shows a clear and strong correlation between poverty and (economic) socialism. This is not science.

EDIT: (Not to imply the last several posts did this. My complaint is more over the general direction of the thread.)

 

[mheslep]

I've been away from this thread for some time, so forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Firstly, I've noticed Sweden is frequently used as an example of socialism that breeds wealth. Actually according to every metric I could find, Sweden is one of the least socialist countries economically. Its socialism is almost exclusively non-economic. It is very much an outlier, and thus referenced frequently by socialists that ignore statistics. But I repeat myself.

I think the idea is just outdated: Sweden was much more socialist in the past, peaking in the 1970s. Most people are apparently assuming outdated facts; I know I was surprised when I looked into it.

Secondly, a few minutes of research shows the clear inverse correlation between economic freedom and poverty level. Just google together phrases like 'correlation', 'economic freedom', 'country', and 'poverty'. Here's a good starting point:

http://www.economypolitics.com/2009/12/first-annual-economypolitics-global_18.html

If these statistics are all biased, then find some that aren't!

Fourthly, speaking of correlations, I see a clear correlation in this thread of those defending socialism with a preference of anecdotes over statistics.

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it so difficult to realize boycotting gives the people far more power than do ballots? And then why is it so difficult to realize moving power from corrupt industrialists to corrupt politicians also takes power away from the people? If you don't like big industry, then start buying your food from local farmers. Its not that hard. If a mere ten percent of the people moved ten percent of their business to local companies, Monsanto, Haliburton, et al would be hurting in a notable way. Do you really think voting for one of two politicians chosen by the system is so much more effective than boycotting, that it makes boycotting a waste of time? Or do you socialists really put your heart where your hand is and boycott? I doubt you do. Try boycotting the government for not delivering the services you paid for and see how soon their thugs will be at your door. Government can prevent Haliburton thugs from coming to your door, but it won't stop its own thugs coming to your door. The reason is that Government is a big business, and its big because it need not obey any laws. There is a tremendous amount of wealth to be made through government via many channels, including loan interest. Or do you really think the U.S. government has been obeying the Constitution lately?

If the real agenda is power over others then solutions relying on the individual and go-your-own-way approach will never appeal.

 

[WhoWee]

And so we continue to see discussions of anecdotes used to smother the fact that every last statistical study of any repute ever performed shows a clear and strong correlation between poverty and (economic) socialism. This is not science.

EDIT: (Not to imply the last several posts did this. My complaint is more over the general direction of the thread.)

Anecdotes can have a role in these discussions - to clarify and focus the discussion.

I think the casual use of the word "poverty" to describe working class persons in the US is part of the problem. If you were on the space station looking down onto the planet - you would not describe a family living on a mandated minimum wage, in a Government subsidized 4 bedroom house with subsidized utilities, electric appliances, a satellite dish, HD TV and stereo system, a car in the drive, cell phones, food stamps, Medicaid, EITC, Make Work Pay (redistribution), subsidized college funds, etc. as living in poverty. On the other hand, you might think persons living in overcrowded ghettos in India or Brazil (first 2 places that came to mind) as slightly less fortunate than the subsidized Americans family. Then, if you looked over to a remote place Africa (or elsewhere) - where children are starving and people live in huts with dirt floors - you might want to save the poverty label for them rather than the subsidized American family. Please label this post IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this relevant?
http://www.walletblog.com/2009/09/universal-coverage-for-car-insurance/

"Universal Coverage for…Car Insurance?"

 

[daveb]

Is this relevant?
http://www.walletblog.com/2009/09/universal-coverage-for-car-insurance/

"Universal Coverage for…Car Insurance?"

An interesting idea, and I kind of agree that since driving is a privilege and not a right (or at least I see it as a privilege), you can mandate auto insurance, but the government shouldn't subsidize it. That's also the reason why I see that since I view medical care as a right rather than a privilege, I can understand the mandate for health insurance, and government subsidizing if you are "priced out" of the market. I'm all for subsidizing rights, but not privileges.

 

[russ_watters]

On what do you base your view that medical care should be considered a right?

 

[daveb]

On what do you base your view that medical care should be considered a right?

Without trying to derail the thead, I base (as much as I can) on the categorical imperative (cf. Kant), where I see if I would want something applied universally or not, and whether or not it treats a person as a means to an end or an end itself.

 

[humanino]

On what do you base your view that medical care should be considered a right?

Also, possibly, on all the other developed countries where medical care is (1) a right and (2) so much more efficient.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, possibly, on all the other developed countries where medical care is (1) a right and (2) so much more efficient.

Well as my mother always used to say, if the French jumped off a bridge, does that mean you should too?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, but frankly, I find the 'Everyone else is doing it' and 'it's cheaper' reasonings to be a pretty lame basis for what in my opinion should be an issue of morality.

Without trying to derail the thead, I base (as much as I can) on the categorical imperative (cf. Kant), where I see if I would want something applied universally or not, and whether or not it treats a person as a means to an end or an end itself.

Thanks for that. A specific, morality-based justification is exactly what I was after and I rarely get it -- and I'm a big fan of the categorical imperative. I realize you haven't given a full explanation so I'll have to think about it some on my own, but at first glance, I'm having trouble seeing how that applies or would apply any more to healthcare than, say, an ice cream sandwich. Everyone wants an ice cream sandwich, but I don't think that's what Kant was after with the idea.

Be that as it may, my reason for asking does have relevance to this thread: I find it common for people, particularly those who favor socialism, to favor incorporation of rights without moral justification. Some of the arguments look to me to be pretty cavalier. And IMO, that follows from/fits with socialism because humans seem wired for the desire to be moral, but socialism seems difficult to justify morally. And by labeling something a "right", you are basically saying 'this is morally correct'. But it is my perception that people use the label to avoid the justification and wide-ranging government control over our everyday lives really should have a justification grounded in morality -- something more principled than 'everyone else is doing it'. And I believe that socialism is difficult to justify morally which is why, in my perception, people avoid doing it or short-circuit the argument by applying the label cavalierly.

 

[humanino]

morality

I am not saying "right" like in "right or wrong". Such comment does not belong here. I am saying "right" like in "right and duty" and from the etymology "regulate".

 

[russ_watters]

I've never heard that etymology for "right" and can't seem to find it on the net. Could you post a source please?

In any case, it seems an odd and usage of the word in this context. If you look on Dictionary.com, the first five definitions (of the noun, of course) all contain references to morality... indeed, the word "duty" implies both civic and moral requirements. But, we could, for example, look at this - due to use of the word "or":

"that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong."

(Caveat: The etymology I see for "right" is much tighter, having it mean exactly and various permutations of "morally correct": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=right )

...and ignore most of it to focus on "that which is legally proper", but it seems like an inappropriate edit to me. Nevertheless, the reality is that a government can in fact simply declare something a "right" for any reason, without any basis.

Point being, one can, if they choose, say that a "right" is just an idea, action, etc. that is written into law for protection by the government, but historically those things are based on moral principles. As I said before, to separate right from morality allows for anyone to choose anything and just declare it a "right" for any reason. I find grave danger in such a capricious basis for rights -- but as I said before, that fits with my perception of socialism.

 

[LaurieAG]

Point being, one can, if they choose, say that a "right" is just an idea, action, etc. that is written into law for protection by the government, but historically those things are based on moral principles. As I said before, to separate right from morality allows for anyone to choose anything and just declare it a "right" for any reason. I find grave danger in such a capricious basis for rights -- but as I said before, that fits with my perception of socialism.

In Queensland, Australia, people from countries without reciprocal health agreements (i.e. US) are still treated in our casualty wards for free but our state government has finally announced that these people will have to go to private hospitals and pay for their own elective surgery in future.

The right to treatment in a casualty ward when required is probably the lowest common denominator when it comes to the moral obligations of a host to its guest.