Socialism

[Will]

Just FYI, Tom62, but Germany and the UK pay a lot less in taxes (less than 50%) than people in the US pay for insurance. I'm not sure why you think they pay more.

[SteveS]

I probably should have used a more realistic and generally acceptable example. I'd friggin' love to terraform Mars, obviously.

Eh - doesn't matter to me.  Terraforming Mars is a cool idea.  I'd love to do it, too.  In fact, I'd even be willing to help pay for it.  :wink:  

How about curing a disease that isn't really a cashcow? Let's say, for example, there is a need to find a cure for a disease that's mostly effecting the poor. Let's say millions die. Could 300 million people come together to save a few million poor people? Is it okay for people to say, "Fuck the poor"? Is that freedom, the freedom to passively kill? Is it passively killing?

Yeah - I don't know.  We'll probably disagree on how we see the poor --- are all poor people victims, or are some of them that way for a reason?  I don't condone heartless profiteering, but I also don't see it as my responsibility to save everyone from themselves.

Take this mortgage crisis, for example.  I'm not happy that people are losing their homes, and its not in my best interest that they are.  Yet - how many of these people bought a home that they could only afford by maxing out their personal finances to make interest-only payments on a variable-rate mortgage at a time when interest rates were historically low?  It doesn't seem that hard to predict that rates were going to increase, and with it their payments, and yet how much equity were they building to help them through a tough spell by making interest-only payments?

The government could assist, but that really means that I'm assisting.  My tax payments would go to bail people out.  So - let them starve?  This seems cruel, and yet the alternative is that I'm paying for their mistakes --- they took an incredible risk, but they want all the reward of a big risk without any of the risk of a big risk.  How is this fair?  Couldn't it also be considered heartless to subject the people who were much more reasonable to a major financial burden to save the others from themselves?

Here's another case that I find interesting: there was a high-school in Kansas where 50% of a students grade in biology class was from a single leaf-project, where they collect like 50 different leaves and put them in a book and describe the characteristic of the leaf and the tree that produces it.  (Aside: Doesn't this seem like a really weak standard for a high-school biology class?).  Anyway, the teacher warned the students up front about plagiarizing internet pages in their reports.  Even made them sign a paper that stated they wouldn't do it.  And yet, some did.  29, in fact.  So - the teacher was fully prepared to flunk 29 students (rightfully so, IMHO).  The school board, however, intervened and changed the weight of the paper to 10% of the students grades.  But - there was a girl who scored 100% on her work.  Now, instead of getting 100% of 50% of her grade, she only got 100% on 10% of her grade.  And - what did she do wrong?  If the paper was only worth 10%, would she have put in as much effort as she did?  Maybe not - and yet, they changed the rules on her after the fact!  This is what I mean about compassionate intervention --- it could seem kind, but in some ways it can seem cruel.  In this case it clearly seemed to me that we ended up punishing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible.

A pragmatist libertarian?! Sweet!

 Anyway, it seems senseless to argue that a pure unregulated capitalist (or libertarian) system wouldn't have major problems.  I think there are a lot of issues where a government can have a very desirable effect.  I don't really think a total anarchy would work.

Just a few last comments,

I know that France and the UK have monetary incentives for patients that are in good health. They are showing great results.

This seems like a great idea --- but, I think that monetary incentives are more in line with a competitive social structure than a cooperative one.

Can the capitalist system be blamed for the Federal Reserve Bank? If so, then yeah it can create value and then ruin the credibility of money.

If they've somehow attempted to artificially increase value, but ended up ruining it in the process, this is what I'm saying about artificial value.  You can try to prop it up, but it will all fail in the end.  You can't really artificially create value --- not in the long run.  Look at the Japanese real-estate failure --- they were making loans based on real-estate assessments that were false --- they valued buildings and property at levels that nobody would actually be able to pay!  This is artificial -- the property wasn't really worth what they were trying to pretend it was worth.  No artificial value.  :wink:  

BTW, voluntary slave is a contradiction in terms. If they've volunteered, they're volunteers. If they didn't volunteer, they're slaves.

 Yeah - you got me dead to rights on that one!  Reads really stupid, in fact, doesn't it?  I'm blaming beer damage....  :wink:

[Will]

I can't bring myself to punish people for being stupid. You can hold them responsible for their actions, but as long as they've learned from their mistakes I can't bring myself to allow them to suffer. The sub-prime victims are a fantastic example. "If you make $50,000 a year you probably can't afford a $750,000 home no matter what the bank promises you, numb nuts." And yes, those people are now paying a rather serious price for their inability to do basic maths, but should they be allowed to drag down the housing market? Why should me $1.2m home in the Bay Area drop down to $900,000 just because of some idiots? So when your any my tax dollars go towards paying to help stabilize the system, we are actually investing in ourselves. I won't be paying $300,000 in taxes, so it's actually a bargain for me.

Here's another case that I find interesting: there was a high-school in Kansas where 50% of a students grade in biology class was from a single leaf-project, where they collect like 50 different leaves and put them in a book and describe the characteristic of the leaf and the tree that produces it. (Aside: Doesn't this seem like a really weak standard for a high-school biology class?). Anyway, the teacher warned the students up front about plagiarizing internet pages in their reports. Even made them sign a paper that stated they wouldn't do it. And yet, some did. 29, in fact. So - the teacher was fully prepared to flunk 29 students (rightfully so, IMHO). The school board, however, intervened and changed the weight of the paper to 10% of the students grades. But - there was a girl who scored 100% on her work. Now, instead of getting 100% of 50% of her grade, she only got 100% on 10% of her grade. And - what did she do wrong? If the paper was only worth 10%, would she have put in as much effort as she did? Maybe not - and yet, they changed the rules on her after the fact! This is what I mean about compassionate intervention --- it could seem kind, but in some ways it can seem cruel. In this case it clearly seemed to me that we ended up punishing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible.

This is a bit different. I would have suspended the kids and then held them back. All 29 of them. The school board wasn't being socialist, though, they were being coerced by parents. I'd liken that more to special interests bribing or blackmailing politicians if we're illustrating governmental systems. One thing is clear: those 29 kids are probably going to grow up thinking it's okay to cheat, which their parents reinforced by protecting them. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to have parenting classes and licenses.

I think we both agree about artificial value. The Fed has done more damage to our economy in it's lifetime than anything before. I miss gold backing...

Hehehe... on the slave thing, I can't really talk. I've said some things in my time that make your statement look like It was a collaborative effort between Steven Hawking and William Shakespeare.

[SteveS]

Yeah, Willravel, I'm in a fairly good agreement with you here.

Mortgages:  Indeed, as I alluded too, its not really in my best interests to allow the housing market to fail too badly --- I have a large investment in my home which I'd like to preserve.  Bailing them out might be my best choice --- I just wish they wouldn't have screwed up in the first place.  And the loan officers, and therefore the bank, deserve to do some bleeding of their own to rectify the situation.  They should suffer some of the financial backlash --- although to be fair, it seems like they are.  :wink:  

Schoolboard thingy:  Yup.  In particular,

One thing is clear: those 29 kids are probably going to grow up thinking it's okay to cheat, which their parents reinforced by protecting them.

Agreed - wholeheartedly.  The teacher immediately resigned her job, BTW, for which I credit her.

I miss gold backing...

 I have a really old 2-dollar note that is printed with a phrase indicating it is backed by silver in the national treasury.  Probably not true anymore, though, huh?

And hey, cheers dude, I enjoyed this discussion!  

[Will]

It seems that absent religion, dogma, and fundamentalism, people can see eye to eye...

...go figure!

[SteveS]

Well ... its true!  We might disagree on some aspects of this political philosophy, but in the end, I have no doubt we'd get along together just fine.

[Tom62]

Just FYI, Tom62, but Germany and the UK pay a lot less in taxes (less than 50%) than people in the US pay for insurance. I'm not sure why you think they pay more.

In my post I compared the german public healthcare system with the private swiss system. I fancy the swiss system, because  all parties involved (patients, doctors and government)  profit from the lack of burocracy  and overhead costs. Of what I know about US healthcare, I also believe that the people in the UK and German are better off.

When I compare my german insurance and taxes with what I paid in Switzerland then the differences are truly astounding. Here in Germany I pay 300$ (without family coverage) for my health insurance and 50% of my salary goes to taxes. In Switzerland I paid only $50 for insurance and 12% taxes. That might the reason why so many german celebrities (like Michael Schumacher and Boris Becker) fled Germany to live in Switzerland.

What I would like to know is how much money people pay in the US for health insurance and taxes. As you probably know,  I intend to immigrate to the US in one year from now. Via my wife's employer (Worldbank) I will get an Aetna insurance for approx. $100 for full coverage. This sounds extremly reasonable to me.  Is that amount common in the US or do people pay much more?

[Will]

Oops, don't know how I missed Switzerland. That will require further study. My first thought was that Switzerland is rich, but the difference between Switzerland and Germany as far as wealth is insignificant.

I make about $86k a year after taxes. I pay $600 a month for health insurance with Kaiser. I pay about 1/6 of my paycheck in taxes (and I'm really doing a lot of tax magic to pay that little, gotta love accountants).

[rational liberal]

Rational liberal, are you a liberal or a libertarian? It seems by your aversion to socialism that you may be a libertarian (which I see as a somewhat opposing governmental/economic/social system to socialism). Most liberals, at least in the US, support socialist elements of government like single payer universal healthcare or social security.

Hey Willravel, To answer your question I am, in fact a liberal. I have many beliefs that are synomous with the liberal party. To clarify my belief about socialism, I don't necesarily hate the idea I just don't see it as pratical or realistic. To me, socialism just can't seem to get through  two monumental obstacles. 1. Is the reality of human selfishness and greed. 2. The other is the economic burden it places on the government. Our goverment in particular is already in a mountain of debt. If socialism was applied here then our governments debt would skyrocket to unreasonable levels. This, in turn would cause our economy to undergo some extreme instability and eventually it would collapse under the huge weight of the goverment. That would be disastrous and I believe lead to Americas demise. Not exactly the rosey picture socialists like to paint thats for sure

[donkeyhoty]

Our goverment in particular is already in a mountain of debt. If socialism was applied here then our governments debt would skyrocket to unreasonable levels. This, in turn would cause our economy to undergo some extreme instability and eventually it would collapse under the huge weight of the goverment.

Really?  Where did that mountain of debt come from?  - The extremely pro-"capitalist" policies of Reagan and Bush part deux.



Anyway, you all haven't really been talking about socialism, but more of the pros/cons of social democracies.  Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned by the "community", where community can mean a federal government or a small township, etc.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system in which the means of production are privately owned.  Is it really that simple?  on the economic side, yes.


A socialist country wouldn't necessarily control everything, or tax heavily, or do anything but "own" a factory or a farm.  Profit wouldn't necessarily be stifled, or creativity, or anything in the same way that capitalism doesn't necessarily engender creativity or competition.



What seems to be the debate here is over the problems of part socialist-part capitalist countries which most, if not all, western democracies happen to be.  Neither system would work if instituted wholesale(in the world we currently live in), nor do they work all that well together(but it's still better than one without the other).



Also, are all you libertarians essentially capitalist libertarians?
Have you not heard of libertarian socialism?  (hint: in a capitalist society you are under the control of those with ownership of the means of production.  You don't actually have the freedom you think you have, or want, when someone else is calling all the shots)

[SteveS]

Hey donkeyhoty - long time no speak!  Watch any bad FEARnet movies lately?  I've tried to cut back  :wink:  , but they are sort of like guilty pleasures.

I get the gist of most of your comments.  One thing I find really interesting,

Neither system would work if instituted wholesale(in the world we currently live in), nor do they work all that well together(but it's still better than one without the other).

Frankly, I'm wondering if this is the answer: view the two competing ideas as diametrically opposed, but the "best" way might be some sort of blend.

Earlier, for example, I agreed with Willravel that there are many ways in which human natural existence resembles socialism (like my family function).  But, there are also many ways in which human natural existence resembles capitalism or free trade.  Within a hunter-gathered tribe, for example, people probably functioned socialistically --- but when the tribes encountered each other they probably traded with each other.  This would evidence some sort of a blend of ideas, existing naturally.

Ultimately, I don't know that we can defeat our nature - an argument anyone of a libertarian mindset is probably used to hearing.

For example, a common criticism of libertarianism is that not everyone will agree to behave like a libertarian.  But, the opposite charge is equally worthy: in a socialist society, will everyone actually agree to pursue the common good, or not?  Would just declaring our society "socialist" put an end to personal greed and special interest?  Both philosophies have to deal with this same pragmatic concern.

This is why I freely concede that I have pragmatic issues with a "purely" libertarian system - would it really function?  Do the socialists here accept the same doubt about a "purely" socialistic system?  Maybe they do - offering monetary incentives to successful doctors, for example, seems to be embracing a system of unequal reward for unequal ability or effort.

Just a final comment:

(hint: in a capitalist society you are under the control of those with ownership of the means of production. You don't actually have the freedom you think you have, or want, when someone else is calling all the shots)

The statement here is that if I don't own the means of production, then I do not have freedom.  So, in a capitalist society, if other people acquire all the means of production then I would not have the freedom I think I would have.  Why?  Because I would not own the means of production.  But - if this is true, then I cannot have any freedom in a socialist society, where I have completely ceded my ownership of the means of production right off the bat.  So, I don't see how this idea supports socialism over capitalism -- it seems to me to do the opposite.  At least give me a chance to have freedom.

And, ultimately, this is where my personal philosophy motivates me.  I feel that I own my life.  My labor, my sweat, is a "means of production", and I feel that I own it.  I don't think anyone else owns it, or even can own it.  Ultimately, even a slave can refuse to work (although they would probably be killed for doing so).

[Will]

Collective ownership isn't the same as ceding one's ownership. You still own it, but everyone else does, too. I know it's a minor difference, but from my perspective, it's quite big.

Imagine that you have a single stock in a company. While it may seem that you don't have the freedom to run the company, collectively with other people you can. In actuality, it's not dissimilar from democracy.

[nummymuffin]

I don't believe in an ism-I just believe in me!

[SteveS]

I don't believe in an ism-I just believe in me!

Indeed,

Isms, in my opinion, are bad.

:wink:

Collective ownership isn't the same as ceding one's ownership. You still own it, but everyone else does, too. I know it's a minor difference, but from my perspective, it's quite big.

Imagine that you have a single stock in a company. While it may seem that you don't have the freedom to run the company, collectively with other people you can. In actuality, it's not dissimilar from democracy.

Okay - good point.  But "collective" ownership is very different from "personal" ownership.  So, to tie this into the "freedom" argument from above, one would only have "collective" freedom rather than "personal" freedom, right?  What I mean by this is I can't take my own personal path unless I persuade the collective to come along with me.  By owning only $1 in a corporation, I have the freedom to change corporate policy only if the entire collective is of a like mind --- then, collectively, we have a certain sense of freedom, but it really isn't very personal.

And what, in our current mostly-free market system, is preventing one from behaving collectively with others?  Your stock example is perfect --- individuals have chosen to have collective ownership in a case where it suits them.  Aren't there even some small collective farms, collective stores, co-ops and such, in operation as well?

But, in a socialist system, wouldn't we have enforced collectivism?  In other words, could I decide to pursue individual ownership if I wanted to?  Would I be allowed to opt out of the collective and go it alone?

In my libertarian ideal, wouldn't the system allow for collective behavior that was voluntary?

I see the contrast as enforced, versus willed, collectivism.  One system allows for both (edited for clarity: allows for individual and collective arrangements is what I meant), the other does not (as I see it).  If the best way is a blend of ideas --- why not go for the "freedom philosophy", and enter into collectives when it suits us and when we want to, without making everyone follow suit?  Why rule individuality out and enforce collective behavior on everyone?  If collectives are the best approach in the end, and they are allowed in our current system, why aren't there more of them and why aren't they more successful?

On the other hand, perhaps the collectives that exist now feel they are successful.  Maybe they don't generate as much wealth, but the members feel they are better off because of a more satisfactory/assured life style.  Okay - but then why force this on everyone else?  Why not just enjoy the good life they have, that is allowed for, in our current way of things?  Why must they force everyone else to agree that the collective approach is best for everyone, just because they feel it is best for them?

Eh, this is just the way I see these issues.  Sorry about all the rhetorical questions --- I'm certainly not trying to be annoying.

[Will]

What is preventing behaving collectively? I like to cell it "capitalist mindset". In a capitalist system, one is essentially taught from birth to fend for him or herself, and while collectivism isn't strictly banned it's usually frowned upon. Just ask your average American about unions for more insight into that particular phenomena. The capitalist mindset grows as each child is pushed from the nest to get a job to pay for their own stuff, instead of to pay for their share of the household. They individuate, and then create their own nests where their kids will be socialist until they day they can get a job. Instead of helping to pay for food with that job, they're told to pay for their own expensesâ€"car, gas, car insurance, fast food, clothes, etc.â€", but don't become socialist again until they're either dating a poor person (been there) or start their own family unit. This pattern in real world economic education manages to create the illusion that individuation is the only option because we're all alone. I disagree.

A socialist system would and wouldn't be forced collectivism because, as I said, there's no way a true socialist system would work today with our massive populations and scarce resources. It will work within a more complex framework, though. When it comes to certain necessities in a societyâ€"military/police, fire/ambulance, roads, schools, etc.â€"pooling resources becomes more than an option; it becomes a necessity for necessities. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives or add-ons. (don't worry, I'll get to property in a sec...) If the military/police isn't enough, there are private security forces. Schools not good enough? There are private schools.

Now on to property. Collective property can only exist in an abundance or a small population. In many cities around the world, the local government provide bicycles for pedestrians to use. They have more than enough bikes, so people can use them as they please. It's a very successful program and it's often seen a reduction in carbon emissions. This is collective ownership in the modern world that's successful. Why? Because they have a shitload of bikes. Can you still buy your own bike? Sure, but lock it up. And if you do have your own bike, you can modify it or do whatever you want to it because it's yours, but the collective option is still always available to you.

Most important of all? The only person who's annoyed by someone asking questions is either an exhausted parent or someone without answers. As long as I've got answers, I won't be annoyed. And if I don't have answers, the only person I should be annoyed with is myself.