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

[PTK]

So, name for me a good example of socialism succeeding.  I dare you.

"What have the Romans ever done for us, huh?!"

 

[Perd Hapley]

And if it's examples we're looking at, let's look at the vaunted War On Poverty.  We've been fighting this war for 50 years now.  We've spent uncounted trillions of dollars.  We've sacrificed the liberty and the wealth of the younger generations on the alter of socialism.  We've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at the problem of poverty, just as the socialists say we should.

And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway? 

[alex_trebek]

And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway? 

Increased spending.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks a lot like a nail.

[Tallpine]

And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway? 

I suggest unconditional surrender 

[Fjolnirsson]

And what was our exit strategy for that war, anyway? 

I definitely think it's time to pull out...

[PTK]

I definitely think it's time to pull out...

Saying things like that leaves one open to jokes about one's father and "pulling out". 

(Yes, childish, but it's one of those jokes I very dearly love)


Also, agreed with both of the above - "war on N", be it poverty, drugs, etc., are all bunk and need to be stopped immediately.

[MicroBalrog]

nt.  My point is simply that socialism is a part of modern society, has been a part of society, and will continue to be a part of modern society, and the world has not imploded yet.

No.

We do not know what will happen.

You may want to persuade me that socialism is forever, but I see no reason why this is so. Both in America and in European countries, statist programs are sometimes cut or abolished, activities previously illegal are legalized, state-owned industries privatized. Owning gold used to be illegal. It's true that over the last seventy years, statists/socialists have won many of the battles of the war of ideas, if you will.

But this does not mean they will continue winning. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that the tide has begun to turn around the 1980's. Even this so-called triumph of Progressivism they call 'health care reform' isn't that much of a triumph.

Worse yet, your argument is a logical fallacy. Either this, or this, but either way not really logical. :D

[roo_ster]

You may want to persuade me that socialism is forever, but I see no reason why this is so. Both in America and in European countries, statist programs are sometimes cut or abolished, activities previously illegal are legalized, state-owned industries privatized. Owning gold used to be illegal. It's true that over the last seventy years, statists/socialists have won many of the battles of the war of ideas, if you will.

But this does not mean they will continue winning. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that the tide has begun to turn around the 1980's. Even this so-called triumph of Progressivism they call 'health care reform' isn't that much of a triumph.

Worse yet, your argument is a logical fallacy. Either this, or this, but either way not really logical. :D

MB, you are 100% correct in your instinct that socialism can not last forever.  Maggie Thatcher saw it from the non-empirical common-sensical side and pronounced, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Well, back in the 1940s an economist (whose name I can't place at the moment) determined that socialism was unsustainable.  He had studied Germany from Bismark's implementations of socialism on through the UK's growing socialist state a well as France.  He determined that the greater costs imposed on producers caused producers to have fewer children and spend money on maximizing their current comfort.  The result being a population that not only no longer grows as socialist ponzi schemes must, but the most productive classes are the classes hardest hit, leaving disproportionate numbers of the less-capable.  Think Detroit on a continental scale.

There are two ways a socialist system can end up.  First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer.  The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist.  The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.

Which is yet another reason to oppose socialism, as it will cause worse problems than it will solve. 

[Strings]

>Or if you lose your job, will you decline any unemployment, welfare or other government assistance?  <

I've spent many times unemployed, and have never taken any government money.

Not. Once.

Either my wife was working, or family helped out.

I don't currently have insurance. And I'm looking at $5K in dental bills for needed work. My FIL is helping me get a loan to take care of the problem (and start getting my credit fixed).

Don't tell me that gooberment is "needed" for this stuff.

[MicroBalrog]

There are two ways a socialist system can end up.  First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer.  The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist.  The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.

I think Britain is a great example of how a socialist system can 'soldier on' - but they've not excised the welfare state. They've given it a more efficient form - allowing them to make far more money, and in the long term, to actually afford more welfare.

The only way for the system to end is for an alternate ideology to take hold, and this is only happening very slowly. (Although I am sure we're both doing what we can to accelerate the process).

[mellestad]

@Fistful and Headless:

All I am seeing now is, "The current examples of socialism are not perfect." and then you point out specific flaws.

I'll avoid quoting myself, but needless to say I have covered that argument in this thread.  In fact, I wrote about your arguments specifically, before they were even written.

You don't have to convince me that there is a lack of perfect, utopian, socialist societies.  I would agree.  You have to convince me that a non-socialist society would be *better* than all forms of government that currently emply socialism.  The only examples I have seen have been in fiction.

[mellestad]

MB, you are 100% correct in your instinct that socialism can not last forever.  Maggie Thatcher saw it from the non-empirical common-sensical side and pronounced, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Well, back in the 1940s an economist (whose name I can't place at the moment) determined that socialism was unsustainable.  He had studied Germany from Bismark's implementations of socialism on through the UK's growing socialist state a well as France.  He determined that the greater costs imposed on producers caused producers to have fewer children and spend money on maximizing their current comfort.  The result being a population that not only no longer grows as socialist ponzi schemes must, but the most productive classes are the classes hardest hit, leaving disproportionate numbers of the less-capable.  Think Detroit on a continental scale.

There are two ways a socialist system can end up.  First, is excising the worst socialist bits to allow the system to soldier on longer.  The more socialism excised, the longer the system exist.  The other way is that of Weimar Germany, Greece today, Argentina several times this century: a systemic collapse, as reality catches up and bites the system in the ass.

Which is yet another reason to oppose socialism, as it will cause worse problems than it will solve. 

So you can demonstrate a political and economic system that will never fail, even over hundreds of years?

[makattak]

So you can demonstrate a political and economic system that will never fail, even over hundreds of years?

Ahhhh, excellent. We have the "in the long run, we're all dead" argument reappearing.

Welcome back to life, Mr. Keynes.

I mean, after all, who cares if we screw our children, they can just deal with our mess. (After all, that's what we've been doing for 60 years.)

[longeyes]

The formicary.

[mellestad]

Ahhhh, excellent. We have the "in the long run, we're all dead" argument reappearing.

Welcome back to life, Mr. Keynes.

I mean, after all, who cares if we screw our children, they can just deal with our mess. (After all, that's what we've been doing for 60 years.)

"My theory works great because your theory is not perfect."   

This is like the God of the gaps argument applied to politics.

[mellestad]

I'm out for a bit though.  I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric would go back and re-read some of what I wrote, try to anaylze it without being offended, and see if you can give me a real answer to the question I have been asking.  I'll sum it up:

"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"

I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.

[makattak]

I'm out for a bit though.  I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric would go back and re-read some of what I wrote, try to anaylze it without being offended, and see if you can give me a real answer to the question I have been asking.  I'll sum it up:

"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"

I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.

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

[MicroBalrog]

"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"

Better at what?

[Perd Hapley]

"My theory works great because your theory is not perfect."  

This is like the God of the gaps argument applied to politics.

And you've been using it, too, so please dismount the high horse.  

I'm out for a bit though.  I would be overjoyed if one of you swinging the fiery rhetoric...[condescending language continues]

"Can you show me actual evidence of why Libertarianism is better than every socialist system currently in use?"

I'll see about a response in a day or two, if the thread makes it that long.

   Dude.  We've all seen this before.  Someone comes in here to face down the rigidly ideological conservatives with their "fiery rhetoric."  Said person puts on airs of objectivity, reason, calm, balance, etc.  When your backward and oppressive ideas cause disgust and revulsion, you call it "fiery rhetoric."  

Again, get off the high horse.  You are not tall enough to ride it.  I will let you know when you reach that level.  No declarations of gratitude are necessary.  You're welcome.  


It has come to my attention that I was rude.  Rude, because I failed to be properly emotional or "fiery," so that you could rest safely in the belief that you are wiser and calmer than I.  Thus:         

I hope that helps.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

@Fistful and Headless:

All I am seeing now is, "The current examples of socialism are not perfect." and then you point out specific flaws.

No, not merely the current examples.  Every example I know of, past or present, is fatally flawed.

Now, we've done what you've asked, presented examples of successful, superior systems built on the principles of liberty and individualism.  It's your turn to put up or shut up.  Name for us your sterling examples of successful socialist systems.

[Nitrogen]

Before someone else asks it, I will:

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

And I'll answer: Somalia, even though it's a failed state, free enterprise still finds a way to function

Here's a great paper on the issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/328217/How-Does-Somalias-Private-Sector-Cope-without-Government

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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

Because liberty and anarchy are not the same thing.

[longeyes]

In Somalia free enterprise means I trade you my sister for an AK-47.   Freedom isn't anarchy; it isn't license either.

[MicroBalrog]

Somalia isn't an anarchy.

[longeyes]

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