What's so bad about socialism?

[Appa23]

Without looking it up, can you name the two movies in which this line appears?

The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension

and

Total Recall

There may be others.

I do not remember it being in Total Recall. That wasn't the movie I had in mind.

It also appeared in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

[MarleysGh0st]

Nevermind. Appa already got it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Sirge says he is very afraid we will head that way if Clinton is elected.

Without condoning his fear or his view that's what will happen, I am wondering what is so bad about socialism? I don't mean totalitarian states with no individuality. I mean semi-socialist nations like Sweden, where there is low infant mortality, and education and healthcare paid for with higher taxes, and lots of other measurable marks of a successful society. Low suicide rates, all sorts of stuff.

I like competition and individuality and strength. But that's easy to say for someone who is more of a winner than not. There are far too many kids who don't have opportunities to find out who they can become, through no fault of their own. I would endorse a system that provided such opportunities, and I am willing to pay for it.

We used green stamps when I was nine. It worked out OK.

You are free to use your earnings for whatever you want. Donate YOUR money directly to whatever good cause you see fit. Americans are the most generous people on the face of the earth. But when you give the power to the government to confiscate and distribute the fruits of your labor, most of it will be wasted and there will most certainly be more rather than less children that are denied opportunities. And you (and everyone else) will have less incentive to excel. We need less government rather than more.

[SportsFan68]

Interestingly a commentator on NPR this morning suggested that "socialized medicine" is used by the Right in order to avoid any serious discussion about the need for health care reform. It obfuscates and riles rather than contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.

It's my experience that it shuts down discussion completely amongst the same bunch who start bashing Clinton when they're ostensibly defending Bush II. What Ear says is exactly right amongst public groups who should be hashing this out. It is broke, let's fix it. And yet, no fix in sight.

I do not believe that single payer national health insurance is socialism any more than Social Security or Medicare is. Nevertheless, the bugaboo is invoked and so far has been successful in keeping the topic off the action items agenda.

I do not like Senator Clinton's plan. Talk about obfuscating... It wasn't quite enough by itself to make me eliminate her as a potential candidate I could support, but almost. I still like Kucinich, and Edwards scores almost as high for me on "Select Smart" type of questionnaires.

[gotribego26]

As an economic system, certainly capitalism would have to be the antithesis of socialism. As a political system, I'd say libertarianism.

Are we capatalist today? in a pure Ayn Rand sense? - while we are certainly more market oriented than many we allow governement to create a great deal of rules about what we can and can't do economically. And then we have a government that transfers huge sums in a non-capitalist manner.

I would argue the antitheses of socailism is anarchy. We don't generally allow unfettered capitalism in the US. I am thankful.

All the candidates are bought and paid for - you just have to decide whose buyers are closest to your desires.

And to think they call me cynical.

[SportsFan68]

All the candidates bought and paid for - you just have to decide whose buyers are closest to your desires.

That's a good way to look at it.

Kucinich it is.

[gotribego26]

All the candidates bought and paid for - you just have to decide whose buyers are closest to your desires.

That's a good way to look at it.

Kucinich it is.

He (and maybe Paul) are actually less paid for than the others, IMHO. Which is probably why they are polling in the single digits.

I wonder if I'll even feel like voting in November

[SportsFan68]

He (and maybe Paul) are actually less paid for than the others, IMHO. Which is probably why they are polling in the single digits.

I have a young and extremely intelligent friend who is a big fan of Ron Paul. He likes this about Paul (from Wikipedia): He has strong Internet support, leading in web searches and YouTube subscriptions, and had the largest one-day online fundraiser in U.S. political history. He supports Paul because of his consistency and devotion to the Constitution, plus his vote against the Iraq War Resolution. I don't know why Paul hasn't caught on more.

Just out of curiosity, I'm looking forward to reading about Romney's speech tonight, explaining about how his being a Mormon won't affect his leadership capabilities. I don't think it's possible, but maybe he'll say something to convince me.

[Ritterskoop]

"Socialism" is the bugaboo of the Right because it conjures up images of Stalinesque "socialist republics" from the 50s and 60s. It's also a bugaboo because it flies in the face of the "rugged self-reliance" that is allegedly the hallmark of the American psyche - every man for himself, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, etc. Some believe that socialism takes away the incentive to prosper, innovate, etc., because no matter how hard you try, you end up having to give much of it away in the form of taxes to support those who aren't trying hard.

I couldn't have said it better. Where is my incentive to better myself and work harder to that end when I know that most of that extra effort will be taken away and given to someone who doesn't have that incentive? And, I'm not talking about those who are physically unable. I am talking about those that continually sponge off the government simply because it's available and they can.

I would not advocate such a system. I don't know who would. We find ourselves in one, because of mismanagement, but I doubt anyone advocates redistributing money to capable people who refuse to work. That's just silly, that anyone would propose that. What I advocated was programs to support kids who don't have coats or shoes, for Pete's sake, so they can go to school and learn to be autonomous, capable individuals.

In other words, just fix the system we have. Get the redistributed money to the right people, and cut off those who aren't doing their share who could. I still think that's a little bit of socialism, and I still think it's a good system.

[Ritterskoop]

Just out of curiosity, I'm looking forward to reading about Romney's speech tonight, explaining about how his being a Mormon won't affect his leadership capabilities. I don't think it's possible, but maybe he'll say something to convince me.

Are you presuming being a Mormon would adversely affect someone's leadership ability? If so, I'm wondering why. If not, never mind. Thanks.

[Ritterskoop]

As an economic system, certainly capitalism would have to be the antithesis of socialism. As a political system, I'd say libertarianism.

Are we capatalist today? in a pure Ayn Rand sense? - while we are certainly more market oriented than many we allow governement to create a great deal of rules about what we can and can't do economically. And then we have a government that transfers huge sums in a non-capitalist manner.

I would argue the antitheses of socailism is anarchy. We don't generally allow unfettered capitalism in the US. I am thankful.

I love Rand. They would ask her, "But what about the poor? Who will help them?" She'd stare coldly and say, "No one will stop you."

I really do love her work. But she was so angry about the Russian Revolution and how bad it was -- who can blame her, having lived through it -- she could not see the flaws in capitalism. There are fewer flaws in it than any other system yet, but that doesn't mean it's perfect.

I also admire the free market and the invisible hand and the notion that if we work hard we can win. But some of us just get lucky, and are born smart or white or whatever, things we have no control over, and we win without having to do much. I'd like to arrange it so that more folks have access to those possibilities. Just access. What they do with it is their own game.

[SportsFan68]

Just out of curiosity, I'm looking forward to reading about Romney's speech tonight, explaining about how his being a Mormon won't affect his leadership capabilities. I don't think it's possible, but maybe he'll say something to convince me.

Are you presuming being a Mormon would adversely affect someone's leadership ability? If so, I'm wondering why. If not, never mind. Thanks.

That came out more negatively than I intended, and I probably should have said impact instead of affect. OK, maybe not, impact isn't any more neutral than affect. Whatever Reagan was, I could have substituted that for Mormon, or substituted Southern Baptist and Carter, and it would have meant the same if it had been accompanied by the same hype that accompanied this speech. In other words, the fact that he felt he needed to make this speech, and it got so much advance press from reporters, makes me think that this is an aspect that will have some impact on his ability to lead, positive or negative. I don't think it will be neutral.

For example, I think that Carter's Southern Baptist background had a positive impact, not so much during his Presidency, but later on when he became Respected Elder Statesman. I think he had an amazing confidence which was grounded in humility and reflected his faith in a higher power.

[Ritterskoop]

Just out of curiosity, I'm looking forward to reading about Romney's speech tonight, explaining about how his being a Mormon won't affect his leadership capabilities. I don't think it's possible, but maybe he'll say something to convince me.

Are you presuming being a Mormon would adversely affect someone's leadership ability? If so, I'm wondering why. If not, never mind. Thanks.

That came out more negatively than I intended, and I probably should have said impact instead of affect. OK, maybe not, impact isn't any more neutral than affect. Whatever Reagan was, I could have substituted that for Mormon, or substituted Southern Baptist and Carter, and it would have meant the same if it had been accompanied by the same hype that accompanied this speech. In other words, the fact that he felt he needed to make this speech, and it got so much advance press from reporters, makes me think that this is an aspect that will have some impact on his ability to lead, positive or negative. I don't think it will be neutral.

For example, I think that Carter's Southern Baptist background had a positive impact, not so much during his Presidency, but later on when he became Respected Elder Statesman. I think he had an amazing confidence which was grounded in humility and reflected his faith in a higher power.

Certainly plenty of voters and press assume his religion will matter. I don't think it's a necessary condition, but was curious if you did. This clicks better, that it is of interest but not important by definition.

If he wants to stay in the race, he needs to say something like Kennedy did, that if the conflict between his personal views and his job view became unresolvable, he would step aside and let the next person handle it.

[Appa23]

Just out of curiosity, I'm looking forward to reading about Romney's speech tonight, explaining about how his being a Mormon won't affect his leadership capabilities. I don't think it's possible, but maybe he'll say something to convince me.

Are you presuming being a Mormon would adversely affect someone's leadership ability? If so, I'm wondering why. If not, never mind. Thanks.

Have you heard of the "White Horse Prophecy?"

Working in the scrapbooking business, my wife worked for two Mormon ladies. There is a considerable amount of admirable traits in LDS churches and members. However, it is a very structured, very controlled-from-the-top way of living, in our experiences.

Still, my issues with Romney have nothing to do with his religion/faith.

I do have some issues with his past positions of a few issues not being in line with his religion/faith, which he then changed in order to run for the Republican nomination.

[Appa23]

Are you presuming being a Mormon would adversely affect someone's leadership ability? If so, I'm wondering why. If not, never mind. Thanks.

If he wants to stay in the race, he needs to say something like Kennedy did, that if the conflict between his personal views and his job view became unresolvable, he would step aside and let the next person handle it.

Of course, there is the huge difference that Kennedy was widely known to be not much of a Catholic, whereas Romney has been high-up in the hierarchy of the LDS church.

Plus, LDS is looked upon now much more "distrustfully" by the general public than Catholics were in th 1960s.

Much more of an issue with Romney than Kennedy, IMO.

[Appa23]

BTW, I liked what Romney said (which really did not focus on the Mormon question), but it really was a stump speech that could have been given by any of the candidates.

Now, if Obama wants to give a speech why he belongs to a quasi-racist congregation, I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

[Bob Juch]

BTW, I liked what Romeny said (which really did not focus on the Mormon question), but it really was a stump speech that could have been given by any of the candidates.

Now, if Obama wants to give a speech why he belongs to a quasi-racist congregation, I would be interested to hear what he has to say..

I'm sure you liked what Romney said, but non-Christians as well as Christians who don't believe Christianity should be promoted by the government sure didn't.

[Appa23]

BTW, I liked what Romeny said (which really did not focus on the Mormon question), but it really was a stump speech that could have been given by any of the candidates.

Now, if Obama wants to give a speech why he belongs to a quasi-racist congregation, I would be interested to hear what he has to say..

I'm sure you liked what Romney said, but non-Christians as well as Christians who don't believe Christianity should be promoted by the government sure didn't.

Here is the speech.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches ... In_America

Show me a passage that states that government should promote Christianity (or any religion).

[Bob Juch]

BTW, I liked what Romeny said (which really did not focus on the Mormon question), but it really was a stump speech that could have been given by any of the candidates.

Now, if Obama wants to give a speech why he belongs to a quasi-racist congregation, I would be interested to hear what he has to say..

I'm sure you liked what Romney said, but non-Christians as well as Christians who don't believe Christianity should be promoted by the government sure didn't.

Here is the speech.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches ... In_America

Show me a passage that states that government should promote Christianity (or any religion).

You're kidding, right?

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

[Sir_Galahad]

I would not advocate such a system. I don't know who would. We find ourselves in one, because of mismanagement, but I doubt anyone advocates redistributing money to capable people who refuse to work. That's just silly, that anyone would propose that. What I advocated was programs to support kids who don't have coats or shoes, for Pete's sake, so they can go to school and learn to be autonomous, capable individuals.

In other words, just fix the system we have. Get the redistributed money to the right people, and cut off those who aren't doing their share who could. I still think that's a little bit of socialism, and I still think it's a good system.

I don't consider this Socialism in the purest sense. I am completely in favor of helping those that cannot help themselves like the children. Hell, if I could, I would start my own home for homeless kids. We may not be that far apart in our thinking after all.

[Spock]

[quote="Ritterskoop"] I mean semi-socialist nations like Sweden, where there is low infant mortality, and education and healthcare paid for with higher taxes, and lots of other measurable marks of a successful society. Low suicide rates, all sorts of stuff.<<<<


I saw a recent quote that said "Socialism (as you describe it) would be like living in your parents basement forever."

Furthermore as discussed most fully by Mark Steyn (and others) recently in "America Alone"-European style socialism is probably not sustainable for more than the current generation. Most fundamentally-The secular europeans are not having babies and the muslim immigrants to Europe are. A key question for European style socialism is-Will 25Yo Muhammed and Abdul be willing to support 60 YO Jaques and Dominique?