News America's aversion to socialism ?

[redsunrise]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

Because there's no such thing as voluntary socialism. Sure, everybody likes using stuff and services up for free, but nobody wants to participate in it re working and undertaking the effort. That is, voluntary socialism proponents claim it can work voluntarily, but I claim that they're just smoking something wicked. They hold a bad theory about human psychology and context: Rousseau's claim, that is that men are good and made bad by social systems. That is plain incorrect.

So you have to have socialism based on some sort of force. There's no other way. The only true socialism is Stalinist socialism. Everything else falls apart.

The only way is to found your socialism on combination of deception, lies and force. Like Social Security / pay as you go.

 

[russ_watters]

In the US, it might be more accurate to further define the freedoms as as derived from productive or unproductive participation in the economy?

This might over-simplify - IMO - people who seek freedom to be economically productive are more inclined to also want social freedoms. On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.

It may be rational, but it is not what I perceive the reality to be. Liberals tend to favor social freedom over economic and vice versa. That's due to differences in what different people think are important.

 

[redsunrise]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

To quote Ronald Reagan, Johnson has declared war on poverty and poverty won. The poverty was decreasing in USA until War on Poverty took place. I'm not kidding. Check it out.

I'm sure that if you keep your welfare state small politically somehow, it won't swallow entire economy. But that's balancing on the rope act. Sooner or later you're going to fall. Few countries manage to dismantle half of their welfare state and keep the remaining half. Sweden under Moderate Party (centre-right, like US Republicans without RINOs, actually with cojones), accomplished the feat - so far. I'm not bullish on their long-term outlook, though.

 

[Hootenanny]

Please support your assertion regarding "One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)" - or label as opinion.

Any classification of any non-extreme political figure is going to be a matter of opinion. There is no evidence one can provide that will disprove or prove one's assertion of a politician's position on the political spectrum. I believe that such things go without saying.

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility. I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced. There are very few (if any) policies that only increase, or only decrease freedoms.

Coming back round to WhoWee's comment. This is why it is very difficult to have such conversation, much less substantiate facts. By and large, such "facts" are not really facts. The majority of statements in this thread have been opinion and that is the nature of politics. Whether one classes a policy as "socialist" depends on one's outlook - there is not standardized measure of the orientation of policy. Just as there is no standard metric to determine a person's position on the political spectrum.

 

[Hootenanny]

Because there's no such thing as voluntary socialism

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

 

[redsunrise]

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

Purely theoretically, you could have socialism voluntarily without infringing on other people's rights: if participating guys just did not force anyone else to participate, too.

The proponents of socialism know perfectly this is never going to happen, unless people are genetically modified into behaving, say, like ants. Humans are individuals with self-interest first.

So the only way to have socialism in this world is to force it. Try asking proponent of Social Security if they allowed voluntary opt-out, with losing benefits of course.

No way in hell. They would rather have everyone starve to death. They know perfectly why: it has to be based on coercion. Very few, if any, would have participated voluntarily in the scheme.

 

[redsunrise]

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

Of course there is: you want to participate, do. You don't want to participate, don't: form your own commune, move to kibbutz in Israel.

 

[WhoWee]

It may be rational, but it is not what I perceive the reality to be. Liberals tend to favor social freedom over economic and vice versa. That's due to differences in what different people think are important.

Their perception aside, liberals efforts rarely yield the desired result - IMO of course.

When I posted "On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.", the "organization" in mind was a strong labor union. Workers typically give up freedoms to be part of an organization that will both restrict them economically and speak for them. What is the perception of the union worker who pays dues to lose freedom?

 

[Hootenanny]

Try asking proponent of Social Security if they allowed voluntary opt-out, with losing benefits of course.

No way in hell. They would rather have everyone starve to death. They know perfectly why: it has to be based on coercion. Very few, if any, would have participated voluntarily in the scheme.

Wait. Have I missed something here, or are you against social security? Not socialism, but actually social security?

 

[redsunrise]

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility. I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced. There are very few (if any) policies that only increase, or only decrease freedoms.

Clearing confusion up: negative liberty, positive liberty. Look them up. I claim the latter is bull.

 

[redsunrise]

Wait. Have I missed something here, or are you against social security? Not socialism, but actually social security?

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

 

[MarcoD]

Look, I can't help you with comprehending that at the end of 19th century 5% of children were illiterate, whereas now in Britain, after so many decades of welfare state, 20% are practically illiterate.

If you read the article precisely, with comprehension, you'll see a Miller pointing to the fact that by empirical accounts, welfare state does NOT work. It actually made the situation worse. Due to human psychology, motivations, economics, politics, mentality - it makes everyone, including but not limited to the poor, worse off. Except a handful of truly needy and sick, welfare state could collapse tomorrow and we'd be no worse off than we are.

Miller wants it fixed and good welfare state in place. I argue this cannot happen because due to complex reality welfare state works precisely opposite to your idea: that it leads to more prosperous and calm society. It doesn't. Every improvement over the 20th century can be traced to other improvements, but not to welfare state: higher incomes, better technology, better medicine, public health campaigns like anti-smoking. The things that made our life better are not parts of the welfare state. That's the point that both Miller and I make.

Correlation is not causation. Just because welfare state correlated with improvement of situation does not mean it made things better.

Illiteracy is a problem of the UK, not of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, or any other northern European country. It doesn't generalize, except for that something is going wrong in the UK.

The welfare state: About a hundred years ago the south of the Netherlands was riddled with slums of drunk catholics who had too many children (at least to the north's perception), lived in poor housing conditions (one room per family), and men just ran away from that leaving the mother and children behind.

To me, there is no doubt in my mind that investing in that south with lots of welfare money now means that these conditions don't exist anymore, and there is a well-off productive society there.

Nobody can prove anything about this, but to me it is self-evident that without a welfare state, many slums would still exist, like they do in other countries.

Regarding Dutch, here's an interesting paper:

"[URL
[/URL]

Those are lower-educated Dutch that are against welfare state - I wager this is precisely because they experienced it first-hand. Those are educated people who support welfare state, precisely because they did not experience it.

The lower-educated are against everything because the system just doesn't work for them. They'll never be millionaires, at least, the most of them won't, and they know it. Statistics like that say nothing, except for that they simply don't appreciate what this welfare state does for them.

 

[russ_watters]

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility.

No, that's not what I said, and it is only by altering the definitions that that can be true:

I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced.

In western political philosophy, freedom is an individual, not a collective thing. You can believe what you want, but that belief creates all sorts of problems when trying to deal with the functioning of western societies.

Coming back round to WhoWee's comment. This is why it is very difficult to have such conversation, much less substantiate facts.

In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

 

[WhoWee]

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

The problem with Social Security is the Government can't let you opt out because they've spent your invested dollars. Unlike an insurance company or an investment fund, the Government is allowed to spend your money as they see fit and leave behind a debt instrument - no cash reserve or oversight. (Worse yet - the debt was recently downgraded). If Social Security could let you opt out - they would have to give you a Treasury note payable at some future date.

 

[Hootenanny]

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

That is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of social security. Social Security is not simply a retirement fund.

And an optional social security wouldn't work. Everybody needs to contribute to Social Security to support those who require more than their means provide.

Oh, and by your logic - the US social security system is voluntary, if you don't want to contribute then simply emigrate.

 

[Hootenanny]

In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

 

[russ_watters]

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

I don't think redsunrise answered properly:

It isn't what system you have that is voluntary, but rather what you do in it that is voluntary. Voluntary social security, for example, wouldn't work.

 

[russ_watters]

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

In both previous quotes, you are using nonstandard definitions of freedom.

 

[Hootenanny]

In the quote above it.

I don't believe I am in contradiction with the western definition of political freedom. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a federal law prohibiting homicide impinges on a person's freedom?

 

[turbo]

A huge part of the problem, IMO, is that FOX and other right-wing media portray any government program that they don't like as "socialism", while giving the word a very pejorative slant. This resonates among the poorly-educated and ill-informed. Remember Tea Party rallies with signs (side-by-side, often) that read "No Socialized Medicine" and "Hands off my Medicare"?

There are some things that need to be done collectively, regardless of what labels people throw around. Can we maintain our armed forces and pay our troops using businesses only? Can we build and maintain road systems, bridges, etc, without collective action? Who would build the interstate highway system, if not the government (DOT)? The government should act for the common welfare. Such actions are not socialism, but enlightened self-interest. The Interstate highway system that provides for the smooth, rapid transit of goods, produce, etc is a benefit that we all enjoy.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

Again, your comment ""One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)"" can not be supported to fit a standard definition.

 

[Hootenanny]

Again, your comment ""One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)"" can not be supported to fit a standard definition.

I reiterate, that statement cannot be supported. There is no standard measure of a person's "degree of right-wingness", therefore it is pointless to argue whether it is true or not. I meant it purely as a concrete illustration. It was not a factual claim, as most of the claims here are not.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe I am in contradiction with the western definition of political freedom. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a federal law prohibiting homicide impinges on a person's freedom?

No. There is no right/freedom to murder. This objection is somewhat procedural and less important than the other one. To make sure I'm clear on the other one: does your comment on social mobility mean you think social mobility is a collective right? Ie, wealth redistribution favors the collective rights of the poor over the individual rights of the rich?

 

[daveb]

To quote Ronald Reagan, Johnson has declared war on poverty and poverty won. The poverty was decreasing in USA until War on Poverty took place. I'm not kidding. Check it out.

I don't know where you get this information from, but http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001" says differently

 

[skeptic2]

The problem with Social Security is the Government can't let you opt out because they've spent your invested dollars. Unlike an insurance company or an investment fund, the Government is allowed to spend your money as they see fit and leave behind a debt instrument - no cash reserve or oversight. (Worse yet - the debt was recently downgraded). If Social Security could let you opt out - they would have to give you a Treasury note payable at some future date.

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

 

[Hootenanny]

No. There is no right/freedom to murder. This objection is somewhat procedural and less important, than the other one. To make sure I'm clear on the other one: does your comment on social mobility mean you think social mobility is a collective right? Ie, wealth redistribution favors the collective rights of the poor over the individual rights of the rich?

In a nutshell yes.

And this, I think, brings us to the cusp of why we are butting heads. The "definition" of "political freedom" depends on your political orientation. There is no single undisputed definition of the term.

(Forgive me, I am going to use somewhat generalised terms, but I hope you will give me some latitude given the context). A liberal's definition of freedom involves the empowerment of individuals to determine the own life regardless of status. A conservative's (for want of a better word) definition on the other hand would describe freedom and the absence of constraints (i.e. laws) imposed by government.

Going back to the homicide law, it could be interpreted a number of ways depending on your particular definition of freedom. For example, a reduction in freedom since it imposes constraints, or an increase in freedom because it allows the would be victims the ability to determine their own life.

 

[russ_watters]

In a nutshell yes.

And this, I think, brings us to the cusp of why we are butting heads. The "definition" of "political freedom" depends on your political orientation. There is no single undisputed definition of the term.

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only. I would like to know where your definition of rights comes from.

 

[daveb]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only.

Even this is not undisputed - therwise we wouldn't have this discussion, there wouldn't be cases going before SCOTUS, FOX and MSNBC wouldn't frequently butt heads.

 

[Hootenanny]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only.

Russ, whilst the US may have a commonly accepted (but not official) definition of freedom/rights (I dispute this); do not confuse American politics, with Western Politics, they are in fact very different. Freedom in the UK, and the rest of Europe, evidently does not mean the same thing as Freedom in the USA.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only. I would like to know where your definition of rights comes from.

Could you quote the reference and cite the source?