Socialism isn't cool?

[Guest]

I just saw this video and thought I'd post it to see reactions.

I am from Virginia and realize it is a very diverse state. From the coalfields where I'm from in the southwest corner of the state, to the beaches on the Atlantic coast, to the middle of the state which is home to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

This is just shocking to me.



http://www.varight.com/news/socialism-is-cool/

[Guest]

I just saw this video and thought I'd post it to see reactions.

I am from Virginia and realize it is a very diverse state. From the coalfields where I'm from in the southwest corner of the state, to the beaches on the Atlantic coast, to the middle of the state which is home to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

This is just shocking to me.



http://www.varight.com/news/socialism-is-cool/

Socialism has a lofty goal and as a economic theory its worth looking at...in a history class. But the problem becomes when the theory interacts with the human race. It just flat out doesn't work. In practice, with no incentives to do better we humans do less and less.

I got an object lesson in this when I purchased my first condo and I swore I would never live in a community like that again. But I do....TV has some socialist things going on. ( I am going to be killed for this) Like I pay for garbage even though I am not there 6 months of the year. Some people never golf but still pay the same fees as I do and I golf my brains out.

Having just gotten back from France I saw what a socialism at work. The protests...rallies etc. France's government is a democratic socialist state....nothing to fear. Things will play out over time because they have to.

But I will never understand the fear....why be afraid? Someone just called me a commie....thats just nuts.

But I can tell you one thing....I can't wait for my Medicare card and my first Social Security check.....both of these things are socialist in nature. Am I a socialist for that? Heck no I am tired and just want to play golf.

[Guest]

What is socialist? We have public education, police, fire, social security, medicare, all run by the government.

[Guest]

Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Of course, ownership, by definition, means you have the right to the income produced by that thing.

This ownership also implies the rights to the output of the resources.

When you really look at the socialist arm that the government has already reached out with in our country and the things you both mentioned and other controls like delivery of first class mail, the selling of some drugs, schools, Amtrak, laws governing wages, rent control...is it more efficient? Of course it isn't.

But it is much more than economics. It is about individual freedoms and choices. If you can't understand that read The Road to Serfdom by
F.A. Hayek. That is, IMHO, why I stand up against socialism. I'm not afraid of socialism. I am opposed to socialism for myself and my family.

Of course most liberals I know believe you can combine individual freedoms with the best of socialism. Yet socialism is the greatest threat to freedom. Hayek says, "...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and seritude."

The great political thinker de Tocqueville said democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism. "Democracy attaches all possible value on each man, while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number...."

Not just because socialism doesn't work for the economy; but because I believe in freedom of choice for individuals.

[Guest]

Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Of course, ownership, by definition, means you have the right to the income produced by that thing.

This ownership also implies the rights to the output of the resources.

When you really look at the socialist arm that the government has already reached out with in our country and the things you both mentioned and other controls like delivery of first class mail, the selling of some drugs, schools, Amtrak, laws governing wages, rent control...is it more efficient? Of course it isn't.

But it is much more than economics. It is about individual freedoms and choices. If you can't understand that read The Road to Serfdom by
F.A. Hayek. That is, IMHO, why I stand up against socialism. I'm not afraid of socialism. I am opposed to socialism for myself and my family.

Of course most liberals I know believe you can combine individual freedoms with the best of socialism. Yet socialism is the greatest threat to freedom. Hayek says, "...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and seritude."

The great political thinker de Tocqueville said democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism. "Democracy attaches all possible value on each man, while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number...."

Not just because socialism doesn't work for the economy; but because I believe in freedom of choice for individuals.

:agree: Great post Cunningham.

[Guest]

"Freedom of choice for individuals" works until you get to "the tragedy of the commons".

The hard part is trying to establish where that line is - preserving individual freedoms while protecting the entity that makes them possible.

[Guest]

"Freedom of choice for individuals" works until you get to "the tragedy of the commons".

The hard part is trying to establish where that line is - preserving individual freedoms while protecting the entity that makes them possible.


The hard part of "trying to establish where that line is - preserving individual freedoms while protecting the entity that makes them possible" has already been perfercted. We are just straying from the foundation. It is our Constitution.

Are you familiar with "The Invisible Hand?"

[Guest]

The hard part of "trying to establish where that line is - preserving individual freedoms while protecting the entity that makes them possible" has already been perfercted. We are just straying from the foundation. It is our Constitution.

Are you familiar with "The Invisible Hand?"

I have never really seen socialism as anything other than an economic theory much like capitalism. Many European states exist as Socialist Democracies and have for many years. So I am perplexed about the individual freedom thing.... I would think that more describes the Communist state rather than a Socialist Democracy.

[Guest]

BK: No, not familiar with that. But to explain myself a little clearer, it's like zoning laws. Yes, you have the right to do whatever you want with your property (in theory) but you can't put your pig farm next to my house. Nor can I put a miniature nuke plant in my basement.

In the perfect "individual freedom" world, unchecked, you end up with a lot of exploitation (like child labor). I mean, look at some of the dirtier sides of our economic and labor history. That's why it's so hard to draw the line between 'freedom' and 'tyranny' in the real world. One man's "tyranny" is another's "security".

[Guest]

BK: No, not familiar with that. But to explain myself a little clearer, it's like zoning laws. Yes, you have the right to do whatever you want with your property (in theory) but you can't put your pig farm next to my house. Nor can I put a miniature nuke plant in my basement.

In the perfect "individual freedom" world, unchecked, you end up with a lot of exploitation (like child labor). I mean, look at some of the dirtier sides of our economic and labor history. That's why it's so hard to draw the line between 'freedom' and 'tyranny' in the real world. One man's "tyranny" is another's "security".

Great Post.....

[Guest]

Socialism has a lofty goal and as a economic theory its worth looking at...in a history class. But the problem becomes when the theory interacts with the human race. It just flat out doesn't work. In practice, with no incentives to do better we humans do less and less.

I got an object lesson in this when I purchased my first condo and I swore I would never live in a community like that again. But I do....TV has some socialist things going on. ( I am going to be killed for this) Like I pay for garbage even though I am not there 6 months of the year. Some people never golf but still pay the same fees as I do and I golf my brains out.

Having just gotten back from France I saw what a socialism at work. The protests...rallies etc. France's government is a democratic socialist state....nothing to fear. Things will play out over time because they have to.

But I will never understand the fear....why be afraid? Someone just called me a commie....thats just nuts.

But I can tell you one thing....I can't wait for my Medicare card and my first Social Security check.....both of these things are socialist in nature. Am I a socialist for that? Heck no I am tired and just want to play golf.

we fear socialism because there are still idiots out there who think that will work.

Yoda

[Guest]

Margaret Thatcher put it very well. "The problem with socialism is that we too soon run out of other people's money."

Yoda

[Guest]

Yoda - can't argue with that. But there IS a flip side about too much capitalism.

To be very honest with you, I've realized that, over the past few years, I've been reassessing what my political views are. At my core I haven't changed, but experience has shown me things that, sometimes, I wish I hadn't seen. I certainly don't have all the answers and I've been coming up with an increasing number of questions over the years.

[Guest]

BK: No, not familiar with that. But to explain myself a little clearer, it's like zoning laws. Yes, you have the right to do whatever you want with your property (in theory) but you can't put your pig farm next to my house. Nor can I put a miniature nuke plant in my basement.

In the perfect "individual freedom" world, unchecked, you end up with a lot of exploitation (like child labor). I mean, look at some of the dirtier sides of our economic and labor history. That's why it's so hard to draw the line between 'freedom' and 'tyranny' in the real world. One man's "tyranny" is another's "security".

The issue of unchecked individual freedom is part of the invisible hand theory djplong.

Why can't you put your pig farm next to my property? Back in the days when people farmed to eat, it was commonsense. When necessity dictated, local zoning regulations dealt with the issue. The key word is local.

What cleaned up the dirtier side of child labor? It was the progress of free enterprise. You can't paint everything so black and white. You have to look at history. What happened that drove people from the farms to the cities in the first place...did they think things would be worse or better in the cities?

Keeping things local and not giving control of your rights and freedoms to people who work in Washington, DC, is my point. Of course I see the need for certain government functions. I'm not a libertarian, but the one thing I agree with is the total maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways, his own values, as long as he doesn't interfere with anybody else who's doing the same.

[Guest]

You can't put a pig farm next to my house for many reasons.

- My property value, for one
- Runoff from your farm can contaminate my property.
- My individual freedom to not have to smell your pig farm regardless of which way the wind is blowing.

...and "back in the day", is a very dangerous path to go down. I mean, for starters, life expectancy average 35-40 years.

Now, I agree with you concerning more localized control where at all possible. But, even so, there are problems with "where do you draw the line" issues. To put it in stark terms, would you want to live in an America where some states could still deny blacks the right to vote or even drink at certain public water fountains?

[Guest]

To put it in stark terms, would you want to live in an America where some states could still deny blacks the right to vote or even drink at certain public water fountains?

This is prevented with socialism??

[Guest]

You can't put a pig farm next to my house for many reasons.

- My property value, for one
- Runoff from your farm can contaminate my property.
- My individual freedom to not have to smell your pig farm regardless of which way the wind is blowing.

...and "back in the day", is a very dangerous path to go down. I mean, for starters, life expectancy average 35-40 years.

Now, I agree with you concerning more localized control where at all possible. But, even so, there are problems with "where do you draw the line" issues. To put it in stark terms, would you want to live in an America where some states could still deny blacks the right to vote or even drink at certain public water fountains?

What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?

[Guest]

Richie: Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but any time any regulation of any sort comes out of Washington, it's called "socialism" (whether it has anything to do with economics or not). My point was that there IS a role for Washington in setting certain standards - and which standards those are is a matter for debate. I chose that particular example to make a point.

bk: Immediately or over time?

[Guest]

Richie: Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, but any time any regulation of any sort comes out of Washington, it's called "socialism" (whether it has anything to do with economics or not). My point was that there IS a role for Washington in setting certain standards - and which standards those are is a matter for debate. I chose that particular example to make a point.

bk: Immediately or over time?

The thing is; the emancipation of the blacks following the Civil War is a prime and perfect example of the recognition of "rights of the individual", the primary tenet of conservatism as opposed to socialism . The blacks had to be recognized first as equal human beings and then their individual rights were self evident in this "land of the free". This was not a case of the government granting the blacks rights. It was government that allowed their subjugation. They had to be freed FROM the government who's laws facilitated the practice of slavery.

[Guest]

The thing is; the emancipation of the blacks following the Civil War is a prime and perfect example of the recognition of "rights of the individual", the primary tenet of conservatism as opposed to socialism . The blacks had to be recognized first as equal human beings and then their individual rights were self evident in this "land of the free". This was not a case of the government granting the blacks rights. It was government that allowed their subjugation. They had to be freed FROM the government who's laws facilitated the practice of slavery.

Thank you RichieLion.

[Guest]

Richie - ok, at least I understand where you are coming from.

So to continue to drill down in this a bit..

What is your opinion on balancing the following two points of view?

1) Individual liberties and competition at it's best. Whomever will sell me a barrel of oil the cheapest will get my business so I can be more competitive because my energy costs will be lower.

2) Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can't be trusted to go out each day and deny money to terrorist organizations funded by oil revenues. Since the only time people listen is when it hits them in the wallet, we need to hike import taxes (or ALL taxes) on oil to discourage their use. Perhaps by choking off the money supply, we can de-fang terrorist groups more cheaply than with huge military expenditures.

Those are the two positions that, I grant you, I'm wondering where in between them I stand. My gut says 'the individual' but if I step back and try to look at 'the big picture' there's something to be said for working together for a common goal - and dragging the myopic along kicking and screaming (like when your mother told you to eat your veggies even though you didn't want to).

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm trying to find something in between and it's difficult to draw a line.

But I will say this. Cap and trade? Sounds bad to me - mostly because we don't know where the money goes. When I buy a ticket on Amtrak, I'm asked if I want to purchase "carbon offsets" to 'be green'. I have no idea where this goes.

Now, if someone put out an energy tax who's revenues went directly into an 'energy infrastructure bank' that would pay for new generation nuke plants, clean coal, wind and solar farms - THAT I might go for.

[Guest]

Richie - ok, at least I understand where you are coming from.

So to continue to drill down in this a bit..

What is your opinion on balancing the following two points of view?

1) Individual liberties and competition at it's best. Whomever will sell me a barrel of oil the cheapest will get my business so I can be more competitive because my energy costs will be lower.

2) Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can't be trusted to go out each day and deny money to terrorist organizations funded by oil revenues. Since the only time people listen is when it hits them in the wallet, we need to hike import taxes (or ALL taxes) on oil to discourage their use. Perhaps by choking off the money supply, we can de-fang terrorist groups more cheaply than with huge military expenditures.

I'd like less laws and more information. Investigate and find the money trail of the energy producers and let the people know and let the people make their own decision. Then your fellow citizens can also decide how to relate to you when they see how you spend YOUR energy dollar. That's freedom.

The main thing this country has to do in regard to energy is to kick Sierra Club and any other so-called environmentalist group, which are rampant with communist influences, in their collective asses and drill for the black stuff everywhere and anywhere it can be extracted. There are some geologists whos think we might have 200 years or more of oil in our own reach. There are also some who put it much lower, but I still say go for it.

Then, if you wish, we can discuss huge import taxes to cut off the foreign oil. One without the other only destroys our own economy.

[Guest]

Richie - ok, at least I understand where you are coming from.

So to continue to drill down in this a bit..

What is your opinion on balancing the following two points of view?

1) Individual liberties and competition at it's best. Whomever will sell me a barrel of oil the cheapest will get my business so I can be more competitive because my energy costs will be lower.

2) Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can't be trusted to go out each day and deny money to terrorist organizations funded by oil revenues. Since the only time people listen is when it hits them in the wallet, we need to hike import taxes (or ALL taxes) on oil to discourage their use. Perhaps by choking off the money supply, we can de-fang terrorist groups more cheaply than with huge military expenditures.

Those are the two positions that, I grant you, I'm wondering where in between them I stand. My gut says 'the individual' but if I step back and try to look at 'the big picture' there's something to be said for working together for a common goal - and dragging the myopic along kicking and screaming (like when your mother told you to eat your veggies even though you didn't want to).

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm trying to find something in between and it's difficult to draw a line.

But I will say this. Cap and trade? Sounds bad to me - mostly because we don't know where the money goes. When I buy a ticket on Amtrak, I'm asked if I want to purchase "carbon offsets" to 'be green'. I have no idea where this goes.

Now, if someone put out an energy tax who's revenues went directly into an 'energy infrastructure bank' that would pay for new generation nuke plants, clean coal, wind and solar farms - THAT I might go for.

"2) Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals can't be trusted to go out each day and deny money to terrorist organizations funded by oil revenues. Since the only time people listen is when it hits them in the wallet, we need to hike import taxes (or ALL taxes) on oil to discourage their use. Perhaps by choking off the money supply, we can de-fang terrorist groups more cheaply than with huge military expenditures."

You forget the legislative branch and the judicial branch in your scenerio djplong. Even if you don't have faith in humankind, I trust these two branches of government when the proper checks and balance and applied, as something that people listen to more than their wallets.

[Guest]

It was more an intellectual exercise so I could better understand the other's opinion.