This response is ridiculously large, but I don’t want anyone to think I’m ignoring them.
I’m going to number some of these, since I might refer to them again below for other posters.
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.
1. This applies only if your political theory is black and white. You’ve just stated that socialism=evil and freedom=good. Your argument is only a valid premise if any socialism=total control by the state and freedom=total lack of control by the state. America, right out of the gate, was not totally free. No nation is, was or will be, barring real sci-fi stuff where an individual can be self sufficient.
So, it is difficult (impossible, like the conversation with fistful) to even discuss this unless there is a realization that things are not black and white. The more socialism you have, the more freedom you give up and the more freedom you have the fewer services or safety nets are available. There is always a balance. This discussion here though regarding socialism is a strawman.
I personally cannot fathom how a person can be truly free and not happy, or how a person can be unfree and happy. Unless you want to count brain-washed North Koreans as happy.
See #1. If your argument is that any government control over citizens makes you unfree, fine, but you’re doomed to a life of disappointment.
Derail the thread? Are you kidding me?
This question is the entire point of this thread! Do you not understand that?
2. See #1. If being taxed for a government service (socialism) is comparable to human slavery, we can’t have a productive discussion because you are rejecting even a minimal social contract. I suppose you could invent a system where people lived in anarchy until they signed an actual contract with the government…that might be an interesting idea for a book, but it isn’t going to work as a system of government any time soon.
Not a trick question, but the answer shows the lack of regard for property rights and liberty.
How a government respects (or disrespects) the citizens wealth, money (property) is directly related to how much that government respects personal liberty.
There is no liberty or freedom without strong property rights.
The health care law adds an entitlement at the cost of the loss of true liberty. It will have to be paid for through the power of taxation. High rates of taxation are the opposite of strong property rights.
3. I know what you meant, I was kind of being flippant, and I suppose I should limit that. See #1 and #2. Again, your argument only works if you reject, in total, the idea that taxation can exist for any purpose. If you accept that taxation can exist, and citizens can vote to alter the social contract of their own society, then we are back to politics and are moving away from an argument based on some kind of objective morality that states, “Socialism=evil, freedom=good”
I dunno, mell's sounds like the sort of (a/im)morality that would be just fine with slavery & torture, just as long as the majority said it was AOK to do harm to the other citizens in the minority. Also would be fine with positive & negative eugenics, with majority approval.
4. I’m pierced through the heart, I’ll go torture my slaves for some comfort.
Really though, you could also start a thread about objective morality too, and we could discuss that idea on its own, then you could see what I really think. Of course, then you wouldn’t be able to snipe at my political opinion by calling me an advocate of torture and slavery, so that might not be something you want.
I see a trend of more freedom=better quality of life, and I have to make the subjective judgement that more freeddom is probably better than less. Eventually everyone has to make some subjective decision.
I also see a trend of more government=less freedom=less quality of life. I am not saying that a national healthcare system is inherently evil, but I think that if a system passes massive debt to unborn people, it is inherently unfair at the least. This HCR law isn't funded, or else it wouldn't need four years of increased taxes before it takes effect.
Well, now this is the crux of it for me….see, America is not at the top of the metrics for any measure of quality of life, by any system. None. We aren’t the richest per capita, we aren’t the healthiest per capita, we aren’t the best educated, we don’t have the lowest crime levels, we don’t have the most press freedom, we don’t manage our money the best, we aren’t even the happiest. Just google, “Quality of life” and see reports from multiple sources with multiple methods for all sorts of topics and you will see that America is not in the top ten on most of them.
Most of the top ten are far more socialistic than America. Does that mean socialism is good? No. It means you can have a system of government that utilizes socialism to some degree and still be successful, stable and happy.
All in favor of making mellestad the official APS slave boy, vote 'aye'.
See #4
I do disagree with him on the slavery discussion here. When you're forced to work to benefit someone other than yourself, you're a slave to that person or persons. It can be argued that you can opt not to work, but then you have to choose between having nothing to eat and nowhere to live, or to become one of the welfare recipients who are represented by the "masters."
See #2
Yep, nothing like being able to vote to screw over your grandchildren... that can't vote.
"But it's ok, we VOTED on it before you were born, honey. Now shut up and get back in the salt mine."
See #2. Now we are back to details. I don’t want to bankrupt my children either, so we agree!
Did you have any response to the stuff previous about the E.D.I.? I would like to see if that has changed your opinions at all. Do those examples make socialism more palatable to you, or does it simply tell you that socialism might not be linked to economic freedom like you thought it was?
Arguing a moral point with someone who does not believe in objective morality is pointless, since they by definition have no moral standard. They "do what works" or what "feels good" and thus have no concern for good or evil. Because to them, such concepts are merely notions we kind of make up as we go along.
Sticks and stones….See #4.
…That is to say, Americans believe in certain moral ideas. That's what we are.
…
Most of your points are addressed above somewhere. This one is new though, sort of. So, Americas share moral values, and those values are listed in the Declaration of Independence. Ok. Where does it say, “The right to avoid taxation for government services.”? Taxes for government services, including health care, originate from the congress critters that Americans vote for (and they can choose other congress critters). So since the government has power to tax citizens, does that mean the Constitution is in contradiction with the Declaration of Independence?
Precisely. I offer you no evidence, because you (not I) do not yet understand what to do with it. You do not understand the difference between logic and your own moral presuppositions. You presume that to alleviate poverty is a higher goal of government than to safeguard the citizens' basic right to be let alone to enjoy whatever property he does have. This is a moral dogma of yours, yet you treat it as an axiom we must all recognize as self-evident. Another dogma would be the idea that govt. is responsible for making society "work."
Actually, I don’t think the government has a higher goal to do that. I believe the citizenry can direct the government towards that goal though, as they obviously have throughout American history. See #3.
I actually believe in objective morality to a degree. As long as my idea of morality doesn't take from another person, how can it be wrong? But, thier idea of objective morality thinks that you can take from another person...therein lies the rub I guess....
This I will agree with. Now we are back to square one, but with the possibility of realizing there is a difference of opinion that is resolved by citizens. Politics. If you hold your idea to be iron-clad and unshakable then we can’t talk so see #3.
Do you want us to look at individual issues, as you say above, or complete systems, as you say below?
Being that there is neither a true libertarian society these days nor anything particularly reminiscent of the government outlined by our Constitution, there is no state to offer as an example. There are, however, myriad examples of socialist or communist nations(USSR, Argentina etc) and programs(Social Security, Medicare etc.) which either have collapsed or are in the process of collapsing under the weight of their own corruption.
Also, saying "I never said it's perfect" every time we throw out an example(examples for which you continue to ask) doesn't count as debate.
As long as I can show working examples of socialistic states, I believe it is a valid method for debate. To take your tact, I would argue against pure capitalism by pointing out any example of a failed state or program that utilized capitalism. However, that would be dishonest and meaningless to this debate so I don’t do that. Does that make sense?
Socialism has the effect of taking from one human what he has created, through his own time and effort, and giving it to another human who has not invested time or effort. Even in my libertarian paradise, that's called theft, which is both evil and criminal.
On an aside, I believe that without objective standards, there can be neither good nor evil. Outcome, "effect on humans", is not an indicator of goodness, i.e. the end does not justify the means.
See #3 for the beginning and #4 for the rest.
I, personally, would rather live my life trying to be something than die without a chance to be anything, but that's an emotional response. Might be dogmatic, too; you'll tell me if it is.
Since people make fine lives in nations utilizing socialism, I don’t agree with your premise. If you think you cannot make a good life without total economic and personal freedom, see #1, #2, #3.
But you do seem to be saying that, at least you're saying that it's more less inherently evil - therefore more inherently good - than anything else that's been presented. e.g., "I am interested in the best we can do right now, for the most people."
Clearly you think that socialism does the best for the most people, else you wouldn't be here arguing in its favor. From that and what I quoted above, it's probably fair to say that you believe that "good" is a guaranteed non-negative result for everyone. I disagree. While that may be "good" for the dependent, it is not so good for those who had to work that much harder not only to support the dependent, but to pay the government bureaucrat to pay the dependent.
No, that isn’t what I am saying. I’m saying every valid system has both, and pure freedom is not an option for a nation. Since I can point to nations I would not mind living in that use more socialism than America, I don’t feel you can say that more socialism = doom. “Socialism” isn’t specific enough to make any kind of blanket statement. See #3.
Then stop dismissing our arguments as dogmatic and intuition-based and start giving examples of how giving individual liberty the benefit of the doubt somehow fails the individual(or society as a whole, for that matter).
I don’t want to live in America circa 1776. I like the Interstate highway system, I like public radio, I like fire codes and food safety regulation, etc. My life, today, is better than the life of people 150 years ago. Unless you can show me a working example of how your proposal is better, I’m not going to take it on faith that things will be better by turning social and economic reality upside down.
The main fault, morality aside, of socialism is that it depends on people to be virtuous. It depends on the production of the able, it depends on the unproductive or disabled to consume only what they truly need, it depends on the fair allocation of production by the government. As soon as the producers find out that initiative and ambition do not bear fruit, or the "safety net" creates a full-time dependent class, or corrupt people get into positions of power, it starts downhill. Do you agree?
Consider the alternative - small government and economic liberty. Those who produce keep more of their earnings; confiscatory taxation does not discourage production. Those who choose to leech off society will have no means to profit by it; such safety nets as the profit-driven private sector would create(which it has, see the insurance industry) would not tolerate free riders. Such government corruption as would exist would have a necessarily smaller impact on the individual; if the Congress doesn't have a third of your income to spend, and if deficit spending is legally forbidden, they can't exactly commit "generational theft". Do you agree?
The same thing could be said of Libertarianism, because you are assuming private organizations would take care of things and the powerful would not take advantage of the weak. At least with socialism (or any government system that is not economic laissez-faire) there is a way to establish a somewhat independent watchdog to mediate the needs and wants of citizens.
It is imperfect, but I shudder to think of what a modern mega corporation could accomplish without any kind of regulation or oversight. That does not mean total government control though; I have stated before that a good system of governance balances protection and safety with incentives and risk.
You cite the insurance industry as an example of private industry safety nets, but that is an enormously regulated industry. I think your example works if you assume a certain size of society, but again, I don’t see how a small government can stand up to a corporation that literally has more money than the government of the native land. To argue otherwise I’ll be back to asking for examples of nations with non-regulated industries that work well. Again, regulation doesn’t spring out of the ether, it usually has a reason behind it. Again, is it perfect? No.
