If you aren't sure what they are trying to accomplish, this should clarify it...

[MicroBalrog]

No, but then neither is anywhere else.  Tribal warlords, no?

Some combination of tribal warlords, feudalism, and, amazingly, a democratic Republic (one that controls 30% of Somalia's territory and runs a sort of semblance of elections where leaders actually change rather than being "elected" for life as is the custom of that continent").

[Tallpine]

"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"

Well, maybe because it's on the other side of the globe, it's a completely different culture, I already own land here, etc....

 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

"If limited government is so good, why doesn't everyone who wants limited government move to Somilia?"

The People who wanted limited government did move. Across the globe. Over 200 years ago to this place called America. And the folks who want to suck the tit of limited government until it grows into socialism followed them. IMO. The tit suckers can move, or stay here long enough and be moved against their will. Folks have almost had enough.

[mellestad]

http://www.heritage.org/index/

I'm confused Mak, how does the index show anything positive for your argument?  Or am I misunderstanding something?

@Fistful: Ok then, thanks for answering my question in a constructive manner.

@Micro: Overall system.  If you can show it is better at anything though yuo consider positive, I would be interested to hear about it though.  Naturally, the problem is different people prioritize different things and my interests might not match yours so we might not agree on what an 'ideal' world is.

@Nitro: I would not be silly enough to bring up failed states, I try to avoid making straw man arguments when they are that easy to shoot down

[makattak]

I'm confused Mak, how does the index show anything positive for your argument?  Or am I misunderstanding something?

Look for the correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity...

[Perd Hapley]

@Fistful: Ok then, thanks for answering my question in a constructive manner.

Could you please stop acting like you're in charge of the discussion? 

[mellestad]

Look for the correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity...

I agree, I just didn't imagine you or anyone here would be pushing any of those countries as any kind of positive example, since most of them are more socialist than America.  Usually I'm the one bringing these nations up as working examples of heavily socialist nations with strong economies.  They are perfect examples of the kind of mixed economic and social policy I tend to advocate (not all of them though, and none are my ideal since I can find things wrong with all of them, and I don't want to live in Singapore!).  Heck, most (all?) of them have government run health care, which is what got this thread started.


@Fistful: I'm glad you are contributing more constructive input, it really helps to convince me that your arguments and philosophy of governance are sound and reasonable.

[alex_trebek]

It's hard to claim socialism/collectivism works when the socialist countries make both extremes of that list.


There is no doubt in my mind that collectivism/socialism can work, in some countries for at least a little while.

Here is the question we should be asking:

Can America practice socialism effectively, without drastically changing the fundamentals of our country, our role as hegemony, and our economy?

The answer, in regard to healthcare, is no. Then the question becomes, will changing any of these three item cause harm?

I believe the answer is yes. I think it would cause irrevocable harm to ourselves, and temporarily the world, if we pursue socialism to any significant degree. 

[mellestad]

It's hard to claim socialism/collectivism works when the socialist countries make both extremes of that list.


There is no doubt in my mind that collectivism/socialism can work, in some countries for at least a little while.

Here is the question we should be asking:

Can America practice socialism effectively, without drastically changing the fundamentals of our country, our role as hegemony, and our economy?

The answer, in regard to healthcare, is no. Then the question becomes, will changing any of these three item cause harm?

I believe the answer is yes. I think it would cause irrevocable harm to ourselves, and temporarily the world, if we pursue socialism to any significant degree. 

To me it seems like the fact that socialist systems are on both ends shows, clearly, that governments and economies are more complex than the argument that usually happens when the word ‘socialism’ pops up on this board.  Reality is always a mixed system, and that has been my point, consistently.

America is already socialist (and we even have social healthcare already through Medicare/Medicaid), so I disagree with the assessment that socialist healthcare in America will cause irrevocable harm to our nation and the world, especially when other nations have practiced it and suffered no greater ill effect than our current system.  Obviously nothing is perfect.

However, “this is the question we should be asking” actually is the correct way to ask the question.  The correct way is to pick an issue and discuss the nuts and bolts ramifications of it, because that can actually be a constructive debate.  Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.

What is my goal for the nation?  How does socialism impact that goal?  Can America practice a greater degree of socialism?  Will it change our nation in a fundamental way?  Will these changes be good or bad?  Why?

So you have some of my (probably not appreciated :) ) respect for approaching the debate in a superior way.

[Perd Hapley]

  Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.

Simply saying, "racism=bad, equality=good" - equally useless? 

[alex_trebek]

For socialist programs to work without becoming insolvent, the funding must come from somewhere.

It is easy for countries to spend all of their tax revenue on welfare programs when the US will "keep the peace." A significant portion of the UN revenues come from the US.

Please do note that I am not discounting foreign contributions as worthless. Bottom line is if America cuts these funds, other countries will have to fill the void to keep the world at peace.

This is where the temporary harm to the world comes into play.

The socialist programs in America are quickly approaching inslovency, using them as a model of socialism working in America is rather foolhardy.

I point to the healthcare system on native American reservations as an example of how well our government works for these programs. The point is that for most American social programs that work, I can find one that is marginalized, underfunded, or on the verge of failure. If they can't even get the smallest minority group in the country a proper socialist program, what makes anyone think they can handle the whole country?

The US government was not designed to operate in a manner to properly run socialist programs. People will just keep on voting themselves a pay raise. Hence the fundalmental transformation.

The fact is that for these programs to work they need to be funded in a sustainable way.

This means higher taxes (on a smaller economy), less military spending (probably starting with all foreign spending), and a shift in the way the federal government works.

[Tallpine]

I disagree with the assessment that socialist healthcare in America will cause irrevocable harm to our nation and the world, especially when other nations have practiced it and suffered no greater ill effect than our current system.

I'm not sure where you think the money is going to come from, especially considering that the USSA is already hopelessly in debt 

I'm no fan of our current military empire, but those "other nations" are at some point going to have to provide for their own defense after the coming collapse of the USSA 

[Perd Hapley]

The correct way is to pick an issue and discuss the nuts and bolts ramifications of it, because that can actually be a constructive debate.  Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.

I hope I'm not the only one who notices what is going on here. 

In case you missed it, he's asserting that clinging to liberty "doesn't help."  The only way to judge the question is to see how well a socialized system delivers health care, without asking whether it would be right for it to do so. 

In other words, the American conviction that places a premium on freedom is bad.  His (anti-American) conviction that the poor must be "helped," even at the expense of freedom, is silently assumed. 


We each have a right to moral presumptions; let's just recognize what they are.  Let us also recognize that some ways of "improving" America are inherently destructive of it. 

[Fjolnirsson]

In other words, the American conviction that places a premium on freedom is bad.  His (anti-American) conviction that the poor must be "helped," even at the expense of freedom, is silently assumed. 

Questions of freedom, liberty and the willful disregard/destruction of our Constitution aside, I find it personally insulting to assume the poor need "help" from the government to survive. At the age of 21, I was rendered homeless in the middle of the night due to a mudslide. I had no education beyond high school, but by the age of 24, I acquired my first mortgage. At 29, I sold that house and paid off a 1700 square foot home. This previous November, through a foolish mistake I made and some unethical behavior by my employer, I became unemployed in an exceptionally depressed area. I view this as an opportunity, rather than a reason to wail and gnash my teeth and moan about how unfair life is. Rather than cry about how those dirty rich people should help me out, I'm pulling myself up by my bootstraps and making money any way I can.

This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".

[Perd Hapley]

This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".

Is that what I've been missing?  Shucks.

[BReilley]

I hope I'm not the only one who notices what is going on here. 

In case you missed it, he's asserting that clinging to liberty "doesn't help."  The only way to judge the question is to see how well a socialized system delivers health care, without asking whether it would be right for it to do so.

Well, of course.  You need to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it!

And Fjolnirsson, I don't know whether you recently added the Ron Paul line to your signature or it until now escaped my attention, but it made me lol. :)

[Jamisjockey]

Frankly, I don't care how successful the nation is or not.  Socialism ignores the individual's freedom, and that is morally unjust.  I'd rather be poor and free than morally bankrupted by a society that drains off the hard work of the wealthy so that poor people can get free stuff.  Its ridiculous, and any argument about the social good is mealy mouthed mush.

[BMacklem]

This is America. Anyone who has the will to make it, and intelligence above moron level, can do so. Period, full stop. We have no need of further government "help".

The intelligence level isn't the biggest obstacle there even, it's the sheer amount of laziness that is going to be their downfall.
I can forsee in the coming collapse that riots and looting is going to be so commonplace that most people won't bat an eye.
There will be the mentality of "How dare those people prepare with food and water in advance, I should have some of what he did for himself."

I watched last night as this kid waited for me to get past his line of sight so he could throw a trash bag at a dumpster. Not *in* the dumpster, but at it. Now in all fairness, it was raining, and he would have had to walk a whole FIFTEEN feet to across to the top of the *open* dumpster, but instead chose to throw it from the side of the building.

He saw me coming around the garage area, and was about to toss it, but waited for me to get past the line of sight.
What's even worse is that the placement of the dumpster is actually *below* the level of the grass hill, so the kid could have simply walked a few damn feet and dropped it right in.

That's what we're going to be fighting against.

[MicroBalrog]

Frankly, where I live, when the garbage is within 10 meters of the dumpster, I call it a victory.

[sanglant]

the identity thieves thank you.

[Jamisjockey]

the identity thieves thank you.

I have a heavy duty shredder 

[sanglant]

that beats my free one any day of the week. GG greenstamps.




greenstamps

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Simply saying, “Socialism=bad, freedom=good” doesn’t help anyone.

Horse shat.

Saying freedom is good helps anyone who values freedom.  In a sane world, that would mean everyone.

Since when its it government's job to "help" people?  When did "help" become the most important criteria for judging good government vs bad government?

If you want me to accept your arguments in favor of socialism, you'll first have to prove that you're starting from sound premises.

[mellestad]

…

I agree, we should do everything we can to remain solvent.  Again, I never said I think American economic and social policies are perfect, they are flawed just like all other systems.  Many things need to change and I would love to see America have far less debt, simply for stability and also for our long term chances of dealing with China.

I simply reject the notion of Jamis and Fistful that socialism is inherently and objectively ‘evil’.  To me, good and evil are about their effect on humans.  If a society can make a political system work and it matches their goals, then it works.  It doesn’t go further than that.  Jamis would rather everyone be ‘free’ and totally miserable than ‘unfree’ and insanely happy.  I wouldn’t.  (And I am not saying socialism is inherently good either.  If anyone things that is what I am saying they have not been paying attention.)

Fistful’s post is an excellent example, in which he is horrified that I might actually base my political opinions on evidence instead of a iron adherence to modern conservative American political culture’s zeitgeist.  If being American means I need to pick a thread of political thought and defend it zealously without having any evidence then America is doomed.


Personally, I think this isn’t even about politics.  This is about core methodology for making decisions.  On one side is dogma and intuition and on the other is rationality and empiricism.  Example:

When I say socialism isn’t totally evil I say, “I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom.  Look here,  this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable.  They do not cause undue harm to others.”  When I ask people to show me why their opinion is valid I get, “Because it is immoral to be anything else.” Or “Because other systems aren’t perfect.” Or “Because it makes me feel bad to think about it.”

For me, that isn’t good enough.  It was for a while, but then I decided the way to determine truth needed to be something more objective and less subjective.  I’ve asked multiple times for evidence that their political theories are superior to all other working political systems in the world.  I am willing to be convinced.

(I know there are actually theorists out there who could give a persuasive argument for libertarianism, just like there are for communism, anarchism and every other ism.  But we aren’t even at the point where alternate ideas can be discussed in a logical way.)

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I simply reject the notion of Jamis and Fistful that socialism is inherently and objectively ‘evil’.  

Do you agree that slavery is inherently evil?

When I say socialism isn’t totally evil I say, “I think you need safety nets as well as economic and personal freedom.  Look here,  this is a socialist society that I would like to live in, their people are relatively happy and their society is relatively stable.  They do not cause undue harm to others.”  When I ask people to show me why their opinion is valid I get, “Because it is immoral to be anything else.” Or “Because other systems aren’t perfect.” Or “Because it makes me feel bad to think about it.”

Economic/personal freedom and socialism are mutually exclusive.  Unless your safety nets are entirely voluntary (i.e. not socialist) then you cannot have full economic/personal freedom.

You seem like a smart guy.  I ask that you think some of this stuff through a little better.  Ask yourself, does a man's life belong to himself, or does it belong to others?  If you vcan answer that question correctly, then all of the rest falls into place based on rationality, logic, and objectivity.