Entitlement

Red1966

Well-Known Member
"The only people who would use this argument are those who are themselves demotivated and know that they don't want to work. The only way to see the world through this perspective is if you yourself don't have any real aspirations."
Typical. Insult and attack those who disagree with you, but don't address the statement. This argument is like saying the only people opposed to murder are those who are guilty of murder themselves. Totally devoid of any truth at all.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
that's true pada if you're 25.

i for one, had it all..and guess what? i made the choice..the material at the end of the day means absolutely nothing.

but you can't learn this at 25.
You didn't make the choice, you got canned. The only choice you made was to NOT find another job. What was it you said? Oh, yeah," I refuse to let corporate America get rich off my labor."
 

az2000

Well-Known Member
Unemployment Benefits are socialist, because they are an IMPOSITION by The State ...

Banning the home manufacture of fireworks and explosives is NOT Socialist. it is not an imposition of the states desires, it is a forbidding of a thing which is generally regarded as a hazard to everyone in proximity to your fireworks factory.
I think the point which is lost is that those who advocate for more "entitlements" base their beliefs that the condition of inequality (particularly resulting from a catastrohpic downturn) is hazardous to everyone too.

We can disagree with that. But, it doesn't mean one is "socialism" while the the other socialization of a market isn't.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
This argument is like saying the only people opposed to murder are those who are guilty of murder themselves. Totally devoid of any truth at all.
red, you really speak too much about murder considering your questionable history.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I think the point which is lost is that those who advocate for more "entitlements" base their beliefs that the condition of inequality (particularly resulting from a catastrohpic downturn) is hazardous to everyone too.

We can disagree with that. But, it doesn't mean one is "socialism" while the the other socialization of a market isn't.
any Imposition of The State's imperatives on the market is Socialist by nature

regulating a market, to ensure fair, safe and equitable operation is not necessarily Socialist.

establishing standards of weight, measure, and value are not Socialism
establishing minimum standards of safety, and reliability for products (including construction services) is not Socialism

establishing requirements that you only buy lumber from Glorious State Run Lumber Mill Co-Operative, and nails from Northern Prefecture State Run Peoples Foundry and Manufacturing Company IS Socialism

requiring that all must purchase medical insurance services from a government approved company, whether they want it or not, and that they may not purchase those services directly from the doctor as needed, IS Socialism (particularly, the subtype Fascism)

see the difference?
 

az2000

Well-Known Member
any Imposition of The State's imperatives on the market is Socialist by nature
That has been my point, and that those most inclined to label things "socialism" seem to do so very selectively, in a way which appears to depend on whether they benefit or not.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
any Imposition of The State's imperatives on the market is Socialist by nature

regulating a market, to ensure fair, safe and equitable operation is not necessarily Socialist.

establishing standards of weight, measure, and value are not Socialism
establishing minimum standards of safety, and reliability for products (including construction services) is not Socialism

establishing requirements that you only buy lumber from Glorious State Run Lumber Mill Co-Operative, and nails from Northern Prefecture State Run Peoples Foundry and Manufacturing Company IS Socialism

requiring that all must purchase medical insurance services from a government approved company, whether they want it or not, and that they may not purchase those services directly from the doctor as needed, IS Socialism (particularly, the subtype Fascism)

see the difference?
Deciphering...

If it's good, it's capitalism. If it's bad it's socialism. It doesn't matter if it is privatized or not.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
That has been my point, and that those most inclined to label things "socialism" seem to do so very selectively, in a way which appears to depend on whether they benefit or not.
look closer.

the things called Socialism by those to whom you refer (generally conservatives, republicans, libertarians, etc...) are Impositions of the state's will upon the market, or Impositions of the state's imperatives on the people.

nobody calls clean air standards, pollution controls, building codes, hoa regulations, parking enforcement, cannabis prohibition or any of the various hotbutton issues "socialist" except whackjobs and nutcases.

obamacare is predicated on the mandate and the penaltax, it IS Socialism. it also forces the people to buy shit from state approved companies, which is Fascism (a sub-type of Socialism)

the bailouts WERE Socialism (and particularly Fascist as well)

extending the unemployment benefits IS Socialism (a mild form which can be argued for or against) and it is creeping towards establishment of a "BUI" (Socialism to the extreme)

Social Security IS Socialism, but again, a little socialism is healthy for a capitalist society. it curbs the excesses of extreme laissez faire capitalism, and puts a safety net under the capitalist highwire act, reducing the calls for "Cleanup In The Center Ring" when too many acrobats slip and splatter. mopping up all that mess is expensive to society as a whole.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
look closer.

the things called Socialism by those to whom you refer (generally conservatives, republicans, libertarians, etc...) are Impositions of the state's will upon the market, or Impositions of the state's imperatives on the people.

nobody calls clean air standards, pollution controls, building codes, hoa regulations, parking enforcement, cannabis prohibition or any of the various hotbutton issues "socialist" except whackjobs and nutcases.

obamacare is predicated on the mandate and the penaltax, it IS Socialism. it also forces the people to buy shit from state approved companies, which is Fascism (a sub-type of Socialism)

the bailouts WERE Socialism (and particularly Fascist as well)

extending the unemployment benefits IS Socialism (a mild form which can be argued for or against) and it is creeping towards establishment of a "BUI" (Socialism to the extreme)

Social Security IS Socialism, but again, a little socialism is healthy for a capitalist society. it curbs the excesses of extreme laissez faire capitalism, and puts a safety net under the capitalist highwire act, reducing the calls for "Cleanup In The Center Ring" when too many acrobats slip and splatter. mopping up all that mess is expensive to society as a whole.
Except for the fact that fascism is not a form of socialism. Fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization. This has been thoroughly debated in this thread, a debate you sorely lost.
 

az2000

Well-Known Member
nobody calls clean air standards, pollution controls, building codes, hoa regulations, parking enforcement, cannabis prohibition or any of the various hotbutton issues "socialist" except whackjobs and nutcases.

the bailouts WERE Socialism (and particularly Fascist as well).
And that's where I completely disagree with you. You're right that those who use the term "socialism" as a pejorative to describe everything they disagree with won't apply it consistently because they know it would place them firmly within the irrelevant fringe.

However, that consistent use of "socialism" would apply to virtually any use of the State to create outcomes which willing buyers and sellers wouldn't negotiate by themselves.

Sure, there are extreme examples about public safety (such as your fireworks example). But, zoning laws dictating how your neighbor must use their own private property in accordance with yours is a taking of property by the State for the benefit of another. There's no reason why you should be compelled to build with 2x6s. There's no danger to the public. Nobody requires them to enter your house. It just makes it more predictable that you can enter any house without asking all the necessary questions you are responsible for to ensure your safety.

We do those things to promote stability, predictability. Bailing out the financial system was similar. A similar interference of a market, producing winners and losers which wouldn't exist if market forces were left to operate unimpeded by willing participants.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
And that's where I completely disagree with you. You're right that those who use the term "socialism" as a pejorative to describe everything they disagree with won't apply it consistently because they know it would place them firmly within the irrelevant fringe.

However, that consistent use of "socialism" would apply to virtually any use of the State to create outcomes which willing buyers and sellers wouldn't negotiate by themselves.

Sure, there are extreme examples about public safety (such as your fireworks example). But, zoning laws dictating how your neighbor must use their own private property in accordance with yours is a taking of property by the State for the benefit of another. There's no reason why you should be compelled to build with 2x6s. There's no danger to the public. Nobody requires them to enter your house. It just makes it more predictable that you can enter any house without asking all the necessary questions you are responsible for to ensure your safety.

We do those things to promote stability, predictability. Bailing out the financial system was similar. A similar interference of a market, producing winners and losers which wouldn't exist if market forces were left to operate unimpeded by willing participants.
You are missing the point. Selected banks got bailed out. Everyone's tax money went into specific entities to make sure they did not fail. In a capitalist system the banks would have been allowed to fail. Capitalism is an economic model. You keep mixing politics and government regulation into it in some sort of effort to show it is like a political system.
 

az2000

Well-Known Member
You are missing the point. Selected banks got bailed out. Everyone's tax money went into specific entities to make sure they did not fail. In a capitalist system the banks would have been allowed to fail. Capitalism is an economic model. You keep mixing politics and government regulation into it in some sort of effort to show it is like a political system.
It is a political system. A purely capitalistic system doesn't exist. That's my whole point. Even Adam Smith recognized the "political economy." Business and consumers are the same people who make up society. They use the State to shape the playing field for commerce, to encourage and discourage various outcomes which an unsocialized market wouldn't.

You can't divorce the participants from the system. But, that appears to be what happens when people selectly use "socialism" as a slur for every moderation of a market they disagree with (which, ironically, appears to depend on whether they benefit from someone else's ox being gored).

That's been my point all along. The way terms are used to chill conversation implies that everything is black and white. Everything is either "capitalism" or "socialism." You either "earned it" or it's "an entitlement." But, that's far from the truth.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
And that's where I completely disagree with you. You're right that those who use the term "socialism" as a pejorative to describe everything they disagree with won't apply it consistently because they know it would place them firmly within the irrelevant fringe.

However, that consistent use of "socialism" would apply to virtually any use of the State to create outcomes which willing buyers and sellers wouldn't negotiate by themselves.

Sure, there are extreme examples about public safety (such as your fireworks example). But, zoning laws dictating how your neighbor must use their own private property in accordance with yours is a taking of property by the State for the benefit of another. There's no reason why you should be compelled to build with 2x6s. There's no danger to the public. Nobody requires them to enter your house. It just makes it more predictable that you can enter any house without asking all the necessary questions you are responsible for to ensure your safety.

We do those things to promote stability, predictability. Bailing out the financial system was similar. A similar interference of a market, producing winners and losers which wouldn't exist if market forces were left to operate unimpeded by willing participants.
and we go right back to building codes.

once you complete construction, sure, your house is YOUR problem, but if it topples over it can crush a passing pedestrian, or your neighbor's house.
it is also a commodity. you may decide to sell it to somebody else, and if you didnt follow the codes for minimum safety, the buyer gets BONED when your shoddy construction collapses long after you have fled the area, leaving the buyer with a pile of rubble.

building codes are designed to ensure minimum standards for your house, to protect future owners from your shabby workmanship

the codes establish a MINIMUM standard. if you decide to frame your house at 14 from center instead of 18 (the current code in my neck of the woods) you can totally do that.

you MUST install plumbing that meets minimum standards, but you can do much better if you so desire

you MUST install the electrical within minimum standards too, so your shit doesnt catch fire and burn down your neighbors house.

this is not socialism, this is SOCIETY establishing standards, like "you must wear pants in public" or "you may not drop a deuce in your neighbor's lawn"

all social standards and interactions are not Socialism. Socialism is a governmental and economic scheme defined by Marx with established meanings, and building codes are not involved.

trying to re-frame the language to stifle debate is what youre doing, with this reductio ad absurdum nonsense, and trying to re-define Socialism to encompass all Society.

there was Society long before socialism was invented, and building codes are far older than Marx's pipe dreams of utopia
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
It is a political system. A purely capitalistic system doesn't exist. That's my whole point. Even Adam Smith recognized the "political economy." Business and consumers are the same people who make up society. They use the State to shape the playing field for commerce, to encourage and discourage various outcomes which an unsocialized market wouldn't.

You can't divorce the participants from the system. But, that appears to be what happens when people selectly use "socialism" as a slur for every moderation of a market they disagree with (which, ironically, appears to depend on whether they benefit from someone else's ox being gored).

That's been my point all along. The way terms are used to chill conversation implies that everything is black and white. Everything is either "capitalism" or "socialism." You either "earned it" or it's "an entitlement." But, that's far from the truth.
pure capitalism does exist, but only in anarchy (see Somalia)

under this "pure capitalism" anything you can grab belongs to you, even if you take it from your neighbor after you shoot him in the face.
there are no laws to protect the buyer from the seller, or vice versa
"trade" occurs at the end of a gun, or in the case of two equally well armed participants, with much mutual suspicion.

capitalism NEEDS regulation to ensure that it occurs without violence or coercion, but regulations are NOT domination by The State.

when The State dominates a market, it stops being a market and becomes an Authoritarian Socialist Monopoly.
 
Top