Happy Atheist Forum

I actually joined a group called the Atheist Socialist Club (ASC).  And every decent American we encounter wants to shut us down!

I'm sure everyone here can agree with the Atheism, but how do you all feel about Socialism? The Democratic kind, not the Hitler kind!  Countries like Sweden and The Netherlands make a convincing case for having the government provide Health, Education, and other Public Services, if I do say so myself. My parents flipped. My Mom thinks I'm broken because my soul rejected the Holy Spirit, and my Dad thinks I'm a Communist!

Communism prevents religion, and Marxist Socialism is a transition to Communism, so this topic is loosely relevant!

Please put up some opinions, I hate when my threads go unnoticed and slowly die out.

Hello KebertX
The hardcore socialism has probably passed us by.
Governments don't own the means of production very much.
But they do take responsibility for providing services.
Where I live government is responsible for health, education and many services.

QuoteCommunism prevents religion.

Possibly with a Kalashnikov, not alltogether good.

QuoteMarxist Socialism is a transition to Communism, so this topic is loosely relevant!

What do you mean?
Capitalism has failures, see leaky oil well, communism is inefficent, see collapse of USSR.
I don't think anyone serious is talking up communism, maybe 70 years ago.
I live in the state of New South Wales, Australia, the state currently owns the electricity utility.
Pressure is on to sell, I don't support the sale because I think I will end up paying more for electricity.
I think there is a case for governments providing basic services, electricity, water health and some telecommuications.
Localy both state and federal government owned banks 20 years ago, they sold them, but they could have been useful.
Now the government tells the banks they're being unfair, banks ignore them, and goverment is unwilling to take action.

There are 3 kinds of Socialism:

1) National Socialism: That thing Hitler was doing.
2) Democratic Socialism: The Government provides certain public goods and services to the people, rather than everything being privatized and letting the free market do what it wants.
3) Marxist Socialism: Karl Marx postulated that Socialism would be the transitional state of Revolution between Capitalism and Communism.

I'm mainly just focusing on Democratic Socialism.  But, I wanted a loose connection to Atheism, so I brought up the whole communism thing.  Incidentally, most Socialist Nations tend to be Secular enough without having to systematically destroy religious institutions, so in retrospect, that was probably an unnecessary segue.  Sorry if I failed to make sense there.

I think basic needs should be handled via a system like socialism....for instance, I am all for socialized fire fighting and police.

Medicine is also a basic need; but not all medical care is a basic need and not all of it is scientific so the line there isn't nearly as cut and dry...but I do think that everyone should have ready access to necessary and scientifically valid medical care.  Plus, we pay for that care anyway (people going to public hospitals then not paying their bill comes back on the taxpayer) so we might as well plan for paying for it rather than picking up the increased costs after the fact. I don't know how such a system should handle illegals; but, as already pointed out, we are paying for their care anyway.

I suppose I'm quite socialist in my outlook. I think more people respond to a benign social environment where basic needs are met than one where people worry about their basic needs being met. I don't deny for one nanosecond that there will be lazy bastards who will try to exploit such a system. But on balance I would accommodate a few fat lazy buggers rather than have people who can't cope with society suffering on the streets homeless and uncared for.

Great responses, Whitney and Tank.

A lot of the right-wing media outlets here in the US definitely try to convince people that all forms of socialism are Hitler-esque.   :hmm:

Quote from: "Businessocks"Many people don't want socialized medicine here because of the cost,

Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Australia   3,137
Canada     3,895
France      3,601
Germany   3,588
Japan        2,581
Norway     5,910
Sweden     3,323
UK            2,992
USA          7,290

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system)
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-coun ... eir-money/ (http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/)

The wiki link has an interesting table.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?

I would say, yes.  But many right-wingers would try to argue that the only reason our health care costs are too high now is because of all the "illegals"  and "lazy welfare" recipients, I think.  So they claim that we can't afford to cover everyone.  What is always missing from the conversation is how we can re-arrange our money and priorities (prisons, military, big-business tax breaks) to pay for socialized medicine.

Quote from: "Businessocks"I would say, yes.  But many right-wingers would try to argue that the only reason our health care costs are too high now is because of all the "illegals"  and "lazy welfare" recipients, I think.  So they claim that we can't afford to cover everyone.  What is always missing from the conversation is how we can re-arrange our money and priorities (prisons, military, big-business tax breaks) to pay for socialized medicine.

I note you "say, yes"
The figures are per capita.  There would have to be a very high proportion of the population not being counted in the population (illegal) and receiving healthcare, to effect the stats.  I suppose right-wingers don't care about the numbers, it's about propaganda.
The wiki page I linked to isn't favourable on a few of measures including life expectancy and child mortality, you deserve better.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"There would have to be a very high proportion of the population not being counted in the population (illegal) and receiving healthcare, to effect the stats.  I suppose right-wingers don't care about the numbers, it's about propaganda.
The wiki page I linked to isn't favourable on a few of measures including life expectancy and child mortality, you deserve better.

Exactly on all your points.  I agree that we deserve better.  It's an embarrassment to look at our infant mortality rate compared to other industrialized nations.     The other argument all the time is that we'll have longer waits to get in to see a doctor.  This line drives me bats for two reasons 1.) it implies that they would rather the poor and uninsured not get care because it will be an inconvenience for others to wait longer  2.) it assumes that there will never be an increase in the number of doctors, only an increase in the number of patients.  There's no consideration that the more people who have access to preventative and early intervention care will actually free up the over taxed emergency system, etc.  

Also, the other scare tactic is that the government will decide what care you get and not the doctors.  But the same people don't complain that insurance companies right now make all the financial decisions:  my insurance can deny or accept the prescription my doctor writes, it can tell me a surgery my doctor thinks would be beneficial is not covered because they don't view it as necessary, it can tell me what doctors I can and can't see.  

But anyway, sorry if you misunderstood my point in the beginning.  I agree with you completely.  I am angry that our country can't make this a priority and a reality.

Quote from: "Businessocks"Great responses, Whitney and Tank.

A lot of the right-wing media outlets here in the US definitely try to convince people that all forms of socialism are Hitler-esque.   :hmm:

An excellent point.

To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.  But I also understand that right now, created wealth is being hoarded.  I prefer a stable middle ground where vital services (police, fire, health care, national defense) are socialized, but production means are kept private.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"An excellent point.

To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.  But I also understand that right now, created wealth is being hoarded.  I prefer a stable middle ground where vital services (police, fire, health care, national defense) are socialized, but production means are kept private.

I agree, but I feel there is more to be Socialized. Health Care, Colleges, Housing, etc.

I also think tax codes should be put in place to narrow the gap between the extremely rich, and those who have nothing.  Perhaps a Maximum Wage law, (If there's a minimum wage, why not a maximum?)  I was so Excited when Obama tried to pass Universal Health Care, but I had no idea how much anti-socialist fear Americans had! The conservatives just used a series of slippery slopes to try to make people think that providing Government Health Care would somehow lead to a Communist Fascist regime!

When my friends and I actually started an Atheist Socialist Club, everyone just immediately lost their minds! Traditional American values are so deeply grained against those things, and I don't think there's a real reason why. I think it's all just propaganda, but it works amazingly well.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.

I accept the basic economic principle that a free market will provide the most efficient use of resources.
There aren’t that many free markets, intervention is often required, eg monopolies, market stability and public interest.
It seems to me in the USA many sensible interventions are prevented by those with a dogmatic free market philosophy, or a cynical self interest.
After the abuses of Enron, Worldcom and others you might have thought everyone would agree on the need for action.
Well no, the Sarbanesâ€"Oxley Act was opposed by many.
Perhaps if reasonable controls had been placed on markets, the GFC would not have happened.

Back to the comparative health table, the US per capita expenditure is double the average of the other countries.
The outcomes for life expectancy and child mortality are the worst.
I think healthcare for the poor is a good thing, but we don't have to be wishy washy lefties to agree on this point.  
Does anyone believe this is an efficient use of resources?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.

I accept the basic economic principle that a free market will provide the most efficient use of resources.
There aren’t that many free markets, intervention is often required, eg monopolies, market stability and public interest.
It seems to me in the USA many sensible interventions are prevented by those with a dogmatic free market philosophy, or a cynical self interest.
After the abuses of Enron, Worldcom and others you might have thought everyone would agree on the need for action.
Well no, the Sarbanesâ€"Oxley Act was opposed by many.
Perhaps if reasonable controls had been placed on markets, the GFC would not have happened.

Back to the comparative health table, the US per capita expenditure is double the average of the other countries.
The outcomes for life expectancy and child mortality are the worst.
I think healthcare for the poor is a good thing, but we don't have to be wishy washy lefties to agree on this point.  
Does anyone believe this is an efficient use of resources?

I tend to view Socialism with a skeptical eye. I see a great potential for abuse in a system where most of the infrastructure is government run. I tend to be distrustful of big government, as "a government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away." I'm not sure if this is correct or perhaps I'm coining a new term, but Constitutional Socialism is something I could accept. The liberties and rights of the people should be first. There are rights that no governmental body has the right to take away. I'm sicked by the UK's trend to strip it's citizens of their right to self defense. If a man cannot legally defend himself, what's the point of free speech or freedom of religion? Any path towards socialism would have to be very carefully laid out, with the liberties of the people coming first, lest it become a totalitarianism.

Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

Has there ever been Utopia anywhere on Earth? Will there ever be Utopia anywhere on Earth? I think the answer to both these questions is no. So what would one consider the least worst regime/society/culture to live in?

Winston Churchill once said (approximately) 'Democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives.' Dictatorial or autocratic (insert preferred political alignment) governments are bad. So it not the alignment that's the issue it's the mode of governance that's the problem. That's why democracy is important as it makes the power mad bastards at least pay lip service to the proletariat.  

As humblesmurph points out, there will always be competition,if any party gains power to the point where they can dictate the rules then the system is flawed. One has to appreciate that rights are not given, they are taken and held, but should not be abused. Effective processes can cope with reasonable union involvement, one just has to involve the union and have management that wants to function with its work force as opposed to just dictate. Been around tables with all sorts of mixes.

All good points above; thanks to all who replied to my post.  In economics, I'm not very highly versed, and this thread has given me much to chew on.

Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Well of course you could defend yourself: You're a Tank!  

Sorry, I can't resist the urge to make bad jokes... Back to the topic.

~

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

See, that always makes me laugh. When people make this argument backwards and say: "The guy who does the better job shouldn't be paid the same as the guy who does the worse job!" What? It hurts your ego to make the same amount of money as someone you think you are better than?
I know they can be construed to mean the same thing, but the argument is better phrased: "The guy who does the worse job shouldn't be paid as much as the guy who does the better job." That turns it into a matter of reward, and whether or not the guy who does the worse job deserves it. The former is making it seem like the guy who does the better job is being punished by not having the satisfaction of being paid more than the other guy.

I see your argument about slackers, but that's the thing: if we see a legitimate problem with reducing competition, we could just... not eliminate competition. It's a democratic process, we could make it whatever we wanted!

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Well of course you could defend yourself: You're a Tank!  

Sorry, I can't resist the urge to make bad jokes... Back to the topic.

~

Quote from: "humblesmurph"It seems to me that none of the Socialists that I have met have thought it out very well.  Many of them (a few of them my good friends) imagine a lovely utopia where we all share and share alike.   I've seen what I believe to be a microcosm of Socialism when as a youth I worked in factories.  

When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

Socialist admit that there would be some slackers in the system.  What they fail to realize is that competition at it's very essence, is inescapable.  It's why we even exist. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors failed to compete.  In socialism or any system that throws a blind eye to individual excellence the competition shifts form who can do the most to who can do the least.

See, that always makes me laugh. When people make this argument backwards and say: "The guy who does the better job shouldn't be paid the same as the guy who does the worse job!" What? It hurts your ego to make the same amount of money as someone you think you are better than?
I know they can be construed to mean the same thing, but the argument is better phrased: "The guy who does the worse job shouldn't be paid as much as the guy who does the better job." That turns it into a matter of reward, and whether or not the guy who does the worse job deserves it. The former is making it seem like the guy who does the better job is being punished by not having the satisfaction of being paid more than the other guy.

I see your argument about slackers, but that's the thing: if we see a legitimate problem with reducing competition, we could just... not eliminate competition. It's a democratic process, we could make it whatever we wanted!

Ok, I'm still trying to get the hang of this quote feature.  In any event ours seems to be a disagreement about the very nature of man.  Utilitarianism is a fact in my view.  That is not to say that our governments should be utilitarian, just that generally are utilitarian.  

First, stating the contrapositive of an argument still leaves you with the same truth value.  Neither argument about equal pay for equal work is "backwards".  No it doesn't hurt my "ego" to get paid the same as the guy next to me and do more work.  I did it for years.  However, over time, what it does hurt is production because I am being actively motivated to work less.

Second, competition is by definition necessitates winners and losers.  You simply cannot have a system that rewards people equally and have competition.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Ok, I'm still trying to get the hang of this quote feature.  In any event ours seems to be a disagreement about the very nature of man.  Utilitarianism is a fact in my view.  That is not to say that our governments should be utilitarian, just that generally are utilitarian.  

First, stating the contrapositive of an argument still leaves you with the same truth value.  Neither argument about equal pay for equal work is "backwards".  No it doesn't hurt my "ego" to get paid the same as the guy next to me and do more work.  I did it for years.  However, over time, what it does hurt is production because I am being actively motivated to work less.

Second, competition is by definition necessitates winners and losers.  You simply cannot have a system that rewards people equally and have competition.

...I know it's the same truth value, I should have not even brought that up, I was just being nitpicky.

I'm not meaning to say anything your ego specifically, I was just using your quote to make a general point. I mean no offense.

Everyone doesn't need to earn the exact same pay. Like I said, it's a democratic process, and we can make what we want out of it.  The free market can provide the most efficient allocation of resources, for most people.  But when dealing with the extremely rich and the extremely poor, this is not the case.  I, personally, don't think Democratic Socialism entails equalizing everybody, simply narrowing the gap.  It simply isn't fair that we have poverty while there are multi-billionaires who just keep getting richer.

No one needs to have a motivation to work less. I think the government should provide Public Services to its people, and enact fiscal policies to narrow the gap between the Ãœber rich and the Ãœber poor.  America's already semi-socialist, but there's still more to be done. And currently there's so much anti socialist fear mongering and propaganda...  I just wanted to make a point that Socialism's not necessarily something to be afraid of.

Point taken.  I was mistaken by the heading.  I've already stated my opinion on Socialism.  I can't form an opinion on Democratic Socialism because I don't know what that is.  Yes I have looked it up.  I still don't know what it is. I know what democracy is, and I know what socialism is--I just don't know what you get when you combine the two.

Quote from: "Tank"Interesting comment Laser. I live in the UK and feel I could defend myself if I wanted to. Our criminals don't normally carry guns and neither do our police so we don't need guns for self defence.

Not wanting to hijack this thread, I've created a thread where we can discuss this, see ya there.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=5507

Quote from: "humblesmurph"When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

This does not seem to illustrate socialism just poor management and perhaps unionism of a previous age.
I doubt such a factory would survive in the age of globalisation.
Union leaders have come to see their interests are served by an efficient competitive business.
I don't think the workers versus owners battle is very important now.

It is not a question of socialism or capitalism, it is a matter of balance.
The world provides many examples of different approaches to the problem.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"When I worked in a factory, I was a member of a union.  Our wages were determined by years spent on the job--not quality of work.  Of course you could be reprimanded for bad work in theory but in actual practice all you had to do to keep your job was show up on time and do a passable impersonation of somebody doing work (we simply called it "looking busy").  I found myself working shoulder to shoulder with men and women who were intentionally put forth less than an honest effort and making the same amount or more as me.  It was called "sandbagging" and I was openly teased for not doing it.  This is obviously an anecdotal example but it speaks to the larger issue in my view.

This does not seem to illustrate socialism just poor management and perhaps unionism of a previous age.
I doubt such a factory would survive in the age of globalisation.
Union leaders have come to see their interests are served by an efficient competitive business.
I don't think the workers versus owners battle is very important now.

It is not a question of socialism or capitalism, it is a matter of balance.
The world provides many examples of different approaches to the problem.

The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?

I'm all for democratic socialism.  How is it in any way acceptable that 1.5 million American children experience homelessness in any given year?  That's one in fifty American kids, not counting discarded and runaway teens.  How is it acceptable that 40,000 Americans die from from lack of healthcare?  An uncounted number of others die because their insurance refuses to pay for treatment for their injury or illness.  How is it acceptable that the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills and that over half of those in medical bankruptcy have or had health insurance at the time the bills were incurred?

My cause is homelessness so these are the things I'm familiar with - many homeless people are homeless due either directly or indirectly to lack of healthcare often due to untreated illnesses or medical debt.  Some of the healthcare bill may be helping - insurance providers must now cover mental illness to the same degree as physical ailments. It used to be that most insurance companies only paid half with a very low cap on what they'd pay out for mental health care.  That meant that a person would still have to lay out more than most can afford.  I was paying $115 a visit for mental health care when I had insurance.  

In my opinion, America is simply the world's richest third world country.

I like socialism in moderation. Some jobs are better suited to the market and some jobs are better suited to the public sector. I'd never trust the market to wage war or plan out and build roads or run healthcare just like I'd never trust the government to regulate what news I have access to or who I can or can't marry or what I can or can't smoke.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?

The US Post Office, if it remains as you describe, sounds like an anachronism.
Public utilities in my country used to be considered inefficient.
Since the 1980s they have been squeezed, management is expected to continually increase productivity.

The problem is finding the balance between public and private activity in the provision of goods and services.
Different countries illustrate different approaches.
Australia has public health, education, post, water, railway.
Used to have public telecommunications, owned a bank which competed with private banks, airports.
Declining public share of electricity utilities.

The government sold its Telecommunications company, creating a private monopoly.
On creation this company was given obligations to provide basic services.
These basic services our now inadequate and the government is now investing in a fibre network in conjunction with the private sector.

If you are interested you could look at Canada and the UK.
Various European countries are held up as models of efficiency, balancing the role of government and private sectors.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The factory was an analogy for pure Socialism.  The US Post Office is such a "factory" that continues to survive.   What exactly are some of these approaches? and what do you see as the problem?

The US Post Office, if it remains as you describe, sounds like an anachronism.
Public utilities in my country used to be considered inefficient.
Since the 1980s they have been squeezed, management is expected to continually increase productivity.

The problem is finding the balance between public and private activity in the provision of goods and services.
Different countries illustrate different approaches.
Australia has public health, education, post, water, railway.
Used to have public telecommunications, owned a bank which competed with private banks, airports.
Declining public share of electricity utilities.

The government sold its Telecommunications company, creating a private monopoly.
On creation this company was given obligations to provide basic services.
These basic services our now inadequate and the government is now investing in a fibre network in conjunction with the private sector.

If you are interested you could look at Canada and the UK.
Various European countries are held up as models of efficiency, balancing the role of government and private sectors.

The US Post office as I described is as it is today not an anachronism (my mother works for them, and I have worked for them in the recent past).  She's a nice lady, but she admits she does very little at work.  She makes $27 per hour and overtime is ample.  I could teach you how to do her job in one day. As a matter of fact, college students do her exact same job for one third the pay and no benefits. Also, the US Post Office is not a public utility, it is a self sustaining non-profit that serves the public good as I understand it.  

I looked up more successful democracies.  What they all seem to have in common is much smaller populations and much less cultural/ethnic diversity.  The US is a very unique situation.  

In any event, in the US we do have Socialism.  We have welfare, and child protective services and unemployment insurance.  If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free).  If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?  

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

My only problem with socialism is the word "socialism".  If all you really want to do is take money from the very very rich and give it to the very very poor, then just call it something else--"Robin Hoodism" perhaps.  It's a noble inclination, but associating it with a political term that many people consider to be a mid-wife to communism seems counterproductive.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Businessocks"Many people don't want socialized medicine here because of the cost,

Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Australia   3,137
Canada     3,895
France      3,601
Germany   3,588
Japan        2,581
Norway     5,910
Sweden     3,323
UK            2,992
USA          7,290

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system)
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-coun ... eir-money/ (http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/)

The wiki link has an interesting table.

In a word, yes. Our political system is so damaged here, with lobbyists and special interests putting more pressure on our so-call representatives every election season. Health care and related industries are some of the worst in this, especially big pharmaceutical companies. Unless something serious is done about campaign finance reform and removing the influence of big corporate money, nothing will move forward. So remember all of you here in the states, get out and vote in November. Just because it's a mid-term doesn't mean it is any less important.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free). If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

I think you will find that you are wrong about medical treatment being available to every American.  Emergency rooms only stabilize people, they don't treat most illnesses.  If you have cancer and no insurance you are going to die. If you have no insurance and go through the ER with a trauma injury you are twice as likely to die there as an insured person is according to a University of Buffalo study released earlier this year.  

It's a real great value to hold, that people only deserve to live if someone cares about them.

Let me repeat this: In countries that basically have socialized medicine the costs per capita are cheaper.  That means, you would pay less than you do now and could possibly experience a longer lifespan and see a much lower infant mortality rate just like other countries who have implemented evil socialized medicine.  American infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are barely better than Afghanistan's and far worse than that in any other country considered to be a developed nation.  

So you'd prefer to pay more so you can get denied treatment by an insurance company whose bottom line is profit because some poor people might get treatment as good as you would and you feel they don't deserve it.

Take a look around.  In America, the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.  And over three quarters of people who have gone through medical bankruptcy have had medical insurance at the start of the illness or injury that bankrupted them.  Here's a great little article about it. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html)  Just like me, they were regular, hard-working people who faced an illness and were basically left unprotected even though they had paid into the medical insurance protection racket for years and had taken nothing out.  This isn't a pittance we're talking about, many of these families paid more into the medical insurance protection racket than they paid in rent or mortgage payments.

Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.

And even with insurance, health care is pretty shabby here.  The best thing about socialized medicine would be that poor people wouldn't be going to the ER for colds and people would be triaged by their physical condition rather than by their wallets.  The last time I went to the ER, it took almost twenty minutes sitting in an intake cubicle before I got set loose to go sit in the ER waiting room and I had insurance.  I saw an elderly man having chest pains go through the same check in procedure only it took longer because he was in so much pain he could barely talk.  Once they were done they whisked him away to a physician.  If everyone had coverage then they could have just whisked him away without sitting there an extra half hour or more while having his heart attack or whatever.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Yeah, from my experience they don't treat you in the hospital if you don't have insurance, they do the minimum they have to and then cut you loose.  My dad had a heart attack and they for some reason thought he didn't have insurance, so they stabilized him and were ready to turn him out only after a few hours in the hospital after a pretty major incident, looking like death, without any actual treatment.  Once it was cleared up that we did in fact have insurance, his care completely changed.  I mean, immediately completely changed - he went from being a signature away from discharge to being prepped for surgery.  Without our insurance, he would have literally been sent home to slowly die.  I'd like to say that from what I've read, our experience was somewhat isolated, but that kind of minimalist approach to health care for the uninsured actually seems pretty standard.

And even with insurance, health care is pretty shabby here.  The best thing about socialized medicine would be that poor people wouldn't be going to the ER for colds and people would be triaged by their physical condition rather than by their wallets.  The last time I went to the ER, it took almost twenty minutes sitting in an intake cubicle before I got set loose to go sit in the ER waiting room and I had insurance.  I saw an elderly man having chest pains go through the same check in procedure only it took longer because he was in so much pain he could barely talk.  Once they were done they whisked him away to a physician.  If everyone had coverage then they could have just whisked him away without sitting there an extra half hour or more while having his heart attack or whatever.

That's a really good point.  There are a lot of situations where minutes if not seconds count, and wasting that time making sure someone has the ability to pay for the level of care they receive seems almost barbaric when, if we were to have a socialized system, theoretically health and care really could quite literally come first.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If you are sick, you go to the hospital and they treat you, if you can't pay then they write it off (I've been a person that didn't have insurance and was treated for free). If the US is so bad, why hasn't there been a mass exodus to Canada?

Homelessness and poor people dying from curable diseases suck.  I give a significant portion of my income to charity to help.  It seems to me that if everybody who was so concerned about these issues did the same, the problem wouldn't be so bad.  

I think you will find that you are wrong about medical treatment being available to every American.  Emergency rooms only stabilize people, they don't treat most illnesses.  If you have cancer and no insurance you are going to die. If you have no insurance and go through the ER with a trauma injury you are twice as likely to die there as an insured person is according to a University of Buffalo study released earlier this year.  

It's a real great value to hold,

Let me repeat this: In countries that basically have socialized medicine the costs per capita are cheaper.  That means, you would pay less than you do now and could possibly experience a longer lifespan and see a much lower infant mortality rate just like other countries who have implemented evil socialized medicine.  American infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are barely better than Afghanistan's and far worse than that in any other country considered to be a developed nation.  

So you'd prefer to pay more so you can get denied treatment by an insurance company whose bottom line is profit because some poor people might get treatment as good as you would and you feel they don't deserve it.

Take a look around.  In America, the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.  And over three quarters of people who have gone through medical bankruptcy have had medical insurance at the start of the illness or injury that bankrupted them.  Here's a great little article about it. (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html)  Just like me, they were regular, hard-working people who faced an illness and were basically left unprotected even though they had paid into the medical insurance protection racket for years and had taken nothing out.  This isn't a pittance we're talking about, many of these families paid more into the medical insurance protection racket than they paid in rent or mortgage payments.

I never once said that I was against free healthcare. I am very much in favor of it. Saying I'm against changing from a capitalist country to a socialist one is a far cry from saying that I don't want free healthcare.  My point was that we have socialistic elements already and that we need to augment them by taking money from the very very rich and giving it to the very very poor--not scrap the whole system and become a Socialist Nation.  

Btw, I said that hospitals treat you for free, I didn't say that they cured anything.  When I was treated, I got a chest x-ray, a ct scan, an MRI, blood work, an IV, and I night in the hospital.  They knew I didn't have insurance.  They didn't cure a damn thing. The couldn't even give a diagnosis. I received a bill for $17000 (no there is not an extra zero).  I couldn't pay. They wrote it off.  

My point about charity is that it is something we can do right now to help.  Not  "that people only deserve to live if someone cares about them."

Well I have a bit of an insight into the UK National Health Service (NHS) as I use it for my diabetes and my daughter is a medical photographer and her partner is a nurse (he is a man). What one tends to find is that one can wait a long time in ER if one is not very serious eg a couple of stitches required. The last time I had to ER in 'anger' as it were was about 20 years ago when I broke my wrist flying a kite (long story, with a snappy ending). I broke it at 17:00 and got to hospital about 17:30 by the time I had been seen and xrayed it was 1:00 the next day and the bone setter had gone home, so I had to come home with it strapped up and go to bed then go back the next day in the morning and have it set. Quite coincidently I had a vasectomy in the afternoon  :D ) but as he is ex-Navy he has a veterans cover which covers her now they are married. They did get married quicker than possibly they would have done had that pressure not been there.

I don't think one has to be in an economically socialist country to have state funded health care. The UK is essentially a capitalist state with state funded health care that was brought about by WWII and the collectivisation of effort brought about by the war. The US was at war but never under the degree of threat that any of the European allies or Russia faced. The US was never invaded and never attacked effectively by air power. In one sense WWII was a massive great business opportunity to the civilian population with no real physical threat. The war time experiences of the USA and Europe were massively different. In a way the USA has yet to face (and due to geographic considerations) may never face the realities of war where its civilian population actually take casualties. It would appear that the trauma to civilian populations made it all but impossible for a careless government (right or left wing) to be elected after the war. The populations needed to be cared for in equal measure to the sacrifices they had made.

It is also practically impossible to remove public health care once it is in place. Any government that would try to take away the NHS would would be as popular as haemorrhoids!

Quote from: "Tank"Quite coincidently I had a vasectomy in the afternoon  

Remind me not to break a bone in Merry Olde.

Also, although I'm generally a small gov't guy, I think attaching the profit motive to humane health care is obnoxious and should be outlawed.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, although I'm generally a small gov't guy, I think attaching the profit motive to humane health care is obnoxious and should be outlawed.

My opinion?

I am not sure.

I think it works and works well.

For those who want to de-regulate government, do away with the Department of Education, or de-regulate everything from environmental protection, to work place safety, think on this for a minute.

Are you willing to give up road maintenance, police and fire protection, public education?

The government is the nation's largest employer.  That is it is the directly the largest employer.

It is ironic that there is a sizable majority that wants government to stay out of their economic business, yet they are employed by the government!

When anyone gets to talking about doing away with Medicare or reforming Social Security, it creates an uproar.  These are social programs.

I think back to a wise South Carolinian who said this, "Keep your government hands of my Medicare!"   Wise indeed.

My government is social democratic, which I guess makes this country to one or another degree socialist. I don't mind on the whole, but I don't like the abuse of my tax money on some of those social issues.

As an ideology, I don't think socialism has much of a chance in any society where everyone looks after his own before the societiy's greater good though... Which would be the case in pretty much every society I know of.

I think socialism is idealistic while capitalism is pragmatic. At the end of the day one has to climb 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) on one's own, but socialism is about acknowledging that it's easier for one to reach the top if the basics at the bottom are met collectively by all in a society. The trouble with a socialist society is that it must always contend with the fact that it will end up being run by selfish 'do gooders' if left to it's own devices. And there is very little worse than living in an unaccountable nanny state, one ends up strangled in risk averse red tape!

I have always felt I am very much in favor of the libertarian free trade above all views which are absolutely in conflict with socialism. However, socialism in some aspects, I have found appealing.

FSF and the GNU Public license for software in specific, I hold in very high interest as a contributor and it is very socialistic at its base. I rationalize it though by assuming the free market has failed and allowed too many monopolies go unchecked by controlling standards and patent thresholds. Also, the introduction cost for competition is immeasurably high and almost certain to fail given that even when found guilty of market manipulation, monopoly abuse and in some cases outright code theft or court bullying, the elimination of competition is still worth the effort.

The US has allowed this to go on because software export and movies are our only real exports anymore in the world market. Nobody can compete with our movies or can unseat Microsoft.

For these reasons, I believe the free market has failed and the only recourse is to pursue a destruction of the market through the GNU license.

I may be an atheist but I am anti-socialist.

Quote from: "jduster"I may be an atheist but I am anti-socialist.

I will agree 100%

What would you consider yourself?

i would consider myself more toward capitalism.  i do not support complete 100% laissez-faire though, as there are some circumstances where the government should get involved with the economy.  capitalism is flawed, but it is optimal and better than socialism.

yeah, I'm a liberitarian. I feel both parties are right in certain situations.

I'm a bit of everything   . I support whatever is good for mankind and for me in particular. On a political scale, you could put me somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans, with a little green and Ralph Nader added to the mix. Never liked socialism, because this is for me more like an ideology than a proper way of running things.

A lot of socialist states are different from each other, as are republics, so this is sort of broad. Certainly socialism can have some good qualities to it and the US government is set up to take advantage of those. So.... I like some things about socialism and dislike some things. At the same time I like some qualities about our representative democracy and dislike some aspects as well. The only perfect form of government would be a universal monarchy with me as king.  

wow, 50 posts and its still on topic, us TAF boys could take a lesson here

ANyways, I'm a pretty hardcore socialist.  I think that the government should regulate, if not control, all of the more vital and major industries like power, water, health care, things like that.  Also, if there is gonna be a law saying that you have to do something (like buy car insurance) then it should damn well be government regulated, Otherwise you get rates like here in Alberta where $1500 a year is cheap, as compared to Manitoba, which has a government run auto insurance company, where most people pay under $600 in the course of a year.

Also, I hope mentioned this already, but incase they didn't, for the record, National socialism was the furthest thing from socialism you could have.  Its was a Facism, which is an extreme form of Capitalism.  NAtional socialism was just the name.

Ideally, I would like to see a worl like that of Star Trek (whats that?  he's a trekkie?!) where a communism is finally accepted as the proper means for the dissemination of resources.  A world were everyone gets what they need to survive, plus a bit extra depending on their job, where everyone gets a vote on everything if they want, thats my kind of utopia.

Just off the bat, I need to differentiate between socialism by free-association and socialism mandated by the state. Socialism emerging through voluntary interaction rather than obligatory force is just fine with me so long as basic principles of secession and non-aggression apply. When you have a state governing society uni-laterally within a geographic area it arbitrarily gives to itself, you completely guarantee not just a monopoly on certain services, but a monopoly that has the perceived legitimate use of force to do as it wants.

Before elaborating, I think we need to outline and discuss exactly what we mean by the term socialism (capitalism if need be) because it is often thrown around with a vague colloquial meaning but often goes without being explained very definitively.

What most fundamentally separates the two concepts we think of as "socialism" and "capitalism" is the system of allocation of resources. In the most general sense, under socialism, resources are allocated either by workers and worker-ran firms, administrative councils usually appointed through a democratic process, or they are allocated through the state. What these processes of allocation have in common is that they are intended to be co-operative rather than purely individualistic as is portrayed in capitalism. Resources are allocated by groups explicitly formed for the very purpose of allocating resources rather than allowing for individuals to decide upon their individual market transactions. Some other things socialism can include but doesn't always are oppositions to wage-labor or "wage-slavery", hierarchical firms, individual ownership of property instead of collective ownership of property, and the like. But in the context of this discussion, I assume we are referring to socialism through the apparatus of the state rather than tenets of libertarianism.

I think this gets at the very core of what is meant by socialism and how it differs in the most significant ways from what we think of capitalism. Go ahead and add on to what you think defines socialism for definitive purposes and keep that separate from what you thin describes socialism.

My overall thoughts on socialism in the statist sense rather than the libertarian sense differ quite significantly from various examples we see in the world. In Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland yes there is a lot of state control of the means of production and allocation of resources, but both are societies that are highly cooperative. This is a cultural phenomenon that cannot be state mandated. As a result, they set up a structure that reflects the most significant parts of their cultures. One thing that is overlooked, however, is that there is a vibrant market system that I would describe as being less repressive in some ways than in the US. It's what we would probably call a very "mixed economy". It is somewhat analogous to mutualism in libertarianism. I would prefer to live in a system of government like what the Scandinavian countries have as opposed to the US, but that is by no means because I dislike the ideas of free-enterprise and individual autonomy. Rather, I think that the US is more statist and authoritarian than Scandinavia generally is. the US is mis-properly coined as having the freest market and purest form of capitalism in the world. This is horrendously fallacious given that the US is simply the greatest haven for rent-seeking corporations. Corporations are of course not products of free-enterprise and never will be in the sense that we know of them today. They are direct creations of the government.  If I could take what I thought was the best the modern world had to offer, I would take Hong Kong's market system and combine with either Scandinavia's or Bahrain's cultural system (minus the religion of course).

As for socialism in the libertarian sense, I would prefer a completely individualistic society of free-association and consider it optimal to libertarianism, but I would not scorn libertarianism either. I think it's just fine if people want to voluntarily cooperate and form a market system based on their own preferences. My preferences and convictions fit in more with the Austrian school of economics rather than a form of anarcho-syndicalism/communism/socialism or whatever.

I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

Quote from: "elliebean"I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

Not much capitalism with the smurfs is it?

Quote from: "elliebean"I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

Okay, going off topic here for a second:
Your username (which I assume is your name) is the same as one of my friends baby mama.  For a second I thought that was you.  Very confusing.  Carry on then.

Quote from: "Roganthis72"

Quote from: "elliebean"I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  :yay:

Quote from: "elliebean"Hehe, that isn't actually my name... well, Ellie's my name, but Bean is short for Jillybean, which is my avatar's last name on Second Life, where there are both Smurfs and capitalism.

I'm not saying I don't like your current avatar, but I really liked this one.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3aNPB.gif&hash=ecbf451c3443da709a777a2270cecc48005ea9f9)

I've been thinking about this for a while.

The trouble is that I don't know what socialism is.  I've read Marx and Engels.  I've heard lots of people talk about it.  I've been to "socialist" countries.  The more I hear about it, the less I know what it is.

Even when people say "democratic socialism," that doesn't help me much.  Democracy sounds nice.  So does socialism.  I get to vote, and I get to have social services.  Sweet!

Still, it seems to be a description of the outcome, and not of the process.

Speaking of outcomes, I once got $200,000 worth of great medical care in a sterile or at least very sanitary environment, for free.  I lived.  My father got some medical care in a septic environment and was killed by an infection he got because of that sepsis.  My family paid $70,000 for that.  I think I got a way better deal than my father did.  The idea of getting a really good deal, especially when it doesn't involve killing me, is something I find quite nice.

Still, it doesn't tell me much about the policies to get there.  That just seems to be assumed.  I just don't think that anybody has figured out how to cure governmental stupidity.

Well, of course it feels nice to get something "free" of charge. The thing is that this is only possible by forcing everyone else to pay a portion of the products of their labor to accommodate these services. The ends may be desirable and often are, but one has to always consider if they are willing to put up with the costs in order to achieve these ends.

I for one am not willing to literally force everyone within an arbitrarily defined territory to pay for some service "voted" upon by with with certain interests that happen to influence the violent apparatus of the state. This is what strikes at the core of socialism and/or statism in general.

In my not especially humble opinion, correctly applied socialism is a wonderful thing.

It's fairly self-evident that the most productive nation states are those where citizens do not have to worry about basic things like food, education, health and so forth. If a state wants to propser and remain stable, then it should invest in its people to ensure that stability is developed and maintained. There's a saying to the effect of judging a society on how it treats the most vulnerable of its members. Socialism provides a huge safety net so that people can determine their lives regardless of their economic background.

Now. Socialism is very different from full-blown Communism. Communism probably won't work anywhere since its demands for regimented uniformity kind of obliterates an individual's identity and self-worth. Socialism, by contrast when implemented correctly, should, if anything, encourage that individual to be true to themself while at the same time finding their own comfortable niche in society. You look at nations like Norway and Sweden. Yes, there's a lot of taxes being paid, but there's also a lot of encouragement for people who want to be artists to pursue their goals in the form of government grants and assistance if needed.

There should, however, be a happy medium. At least in the Official Necrobitsch Definition of Ideal Government. Free enterprise should be in place, but with government backed alternatives to provide a safety net for when the ever-changing tides of capitalism plummet and surge. For example - there should be at least one state-owned bank to ensure that people have the option of putting their savings into a bank that won't shaft them by investing their money into risky ventures that the savers would never have agreed to.

Essentially - A blend between socialism and capitalism should be present to allow a safety net for the vulnerable members to give them a good existence that they can benefit from, as well as allowing the freedom of choice for those who want it.

Also:

Anyone who cannot tell the difference between socialism and communism and thinks Obama is a communist must be beaten around the head with a copy of Das Kapital until they see sense.