American Socialism, What's It All About?: A Fireside forum with i_am_undead and VikingRhetoric!

[John Galt]

I think the connection is much less strong when, say, you have more capital and outbid me for a cow at auction and then the government wants you to give a certain percentage of the buckets you milk from that cow to the government to be redistributed to me.

Especially if it wants to give me that milk so I have the energy to go work hard and acquire enough capital myself to be able to buy an offspring of your cow someday so that I can stop bothering your for milk ;-D

Still, what bothers me is that a ruling body has the ability to force someone to give even if they don't want to. I beleive that a man should have full control of his own property. If the man is rational, he might see it as a good thing to invest in someone by giving them a temporary gift or loan. Of course, this would require an entirely rational and reasonable society, which we clearly don't have.

On the matter of big corporations stepping in as government/no competition/that sort of thing, again, if you have an intelligent, empowered population that is able to tell that they've been buying the same product for years at steadily increasing prices, then they would be able to boycott said item until the producer realises he's making a mistake. But again, the average joe out there behaves in every manner save rational.

 

[John Galt]

Didn't want to add further fuel to the fire, but I'm a little drunk and I can hardly believe some IDIOT managed to make himself look stupid by talking about the Nazi party as Socialists. Yes they called themselves 'National Socialists' but they were nothing to do with any kind of Socialism except for the persecution they brought to any Socialist/Communist parties in Germany at that time.

Either you don't have a clue about what you are talking, or you are a blithering idiot. Or more likely, you are both.

IDIOT

Goodness, I think I've just been called out.

These are some points from the Nazi Party's 25-point plan for development:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

 

[i_am_undead]

What I am saying is if the parents did a good job regulating their children in the first place, then the government would not have stepped in.

First, who said parents *weren't* doing a good job regulating their children in the first place? These proposed laws are, in my opinion, not necessary to protect children and are just a way of imposing a certain morality on others.

Second, I don't understand what any of this has to do with socialism. You don't need 'socialism' to explain why a government is involving itself in the moral affairs of its citizens. That's been done plenty of times in capitalist countries.

I take it this was a response to VikingRhetoric, not myself. Thank you for clarifying below, Cheeze_Pavillion!

 

[i_am_undead]

...

 

[i_am_undead]

I like where this board is going! YES!

 

[i_am_undead]

And, in closing, since it was asked: my rose-tinted view of America is the middle-class conceit that a hard day's work equates into a chance for success. It's tragic that this hope, that viewpoint can be so casually and thoughtlessly discarded with a smirk and a chuckle these days. That's the promise we've made for the past century, if anyone has forgotten. I haven't.

A fantastic post overall, sir, although I took this last section of it! I feel the same way you do, and I hope that sometime in the near future we can find a way in our country to make our hard days' work truly worthwhile! How that will be, you seem to have a better idea about than I.

PS: I'm not being sarcastic about this - but if you haven't tried writing prose on this "rose-tinted American view" that you seem to have a firm grasp of, you should. I would read that and enjoy it very much.

 

[i_am_undead]

First, who said parents *weren't* doing a good job regulating their children in the first place? These proposed laws are, in my opinion, not necessary to protect children and are just a way of imposing a certain morality on others.

Are you actually trying to pull that whole "imposed morality" bullshit? The point of it is that if people are going to complain about something that they, themselves (indivisibly), did and blame others for their own lack of oversight then they are being blithering idiots. If they are complaining without even being effected or if they are complaining based on flawed arguments or sensationalist media then they are, again, being blithering idiots.
The video game ratings are:
1) A very simple (and sometimes over-the-top (comic mischief can sometimes bring a rating all the way up to teen by itself?)) explaination of content,
2) A recommendation (i.e.- blithering idiot parent A can still buy their little psycho G.T.A. San Andreas or Vice City if they want, just as much as intelligent parent B can buy their little common sense-infused brat the same games) [EDIT]for a particular age the game should be played by (oops, got wrapped up in the example and forgot to put this in)[/EDIT],
3) Because of the blithering idiot parents unable to control their little psychos complaining and bitching about how it's unwholesome and turned their or another little psycho into a psycho when they already had problems that were left out in the wild instead of dealt with like a responsible person would do.

Yes YES! I agree wholeheartedly with this whole response! THIS is what the ratings are about (a topic which, strangely enough, provided the segway for the "socialism" argument in a previous forum!)!

 

[i_am_undead]

What is that anyhow, and more importantly, what is America all about?

I would say America is mostly about pick-up trucks and funny videos about shots to the groin and old people falling off docks.

What is America mostly about? Figuring out how to get through the day without collapsing under the weight of all these conflicting identities. Anyone who makes America out to be anything less complex than all of that is wrong, and probably is more interested in an ax they have to grind about something they don't like about America than they are in really figuring out "what is America all about."

I totally agree with your assertion. Your terms are very well organized and defined, thank you.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

and more importantly, what is America all about?

Well...This is how America tends to be seen from over here in Blighty.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

And I can't even drive, so Beamers/Fords get replaced by a nice reliable Mini.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I like where this board is going! YES!

I'm... I'm so glad you approve? Emphatically? Over and over again?

 

[John Galt]

That's fine, but, just remember that when you have to pay each and every owner of the property that your sewer line runs through from your toilet to the waste facility. And your water pipes. And your electricity lines. And...get my point?

If that's what you really believe, that a ruling body should not be able to take away any property right a person has, you're going to have to deal with the issue that a lot of what makes modern life possible--from paved roads to cable modems--is going to be a nightmare under such a system.

I've no problem with paying for roads and that kind of thing, I directly benefit from that. And upon further thought about the health reform, I guess I may indirectly benefit from that as well, so long as no one tries to game the system (which they will, people are funny that way).

Anyways, I figure that socialism and capitalism don't have all the answers for society. On the left hand you have the possibility of corruption (by placing too much power in government, which is just as fallible as you and me), and on the right you have possibility of corruption by placing to much power in a corporation. So, falling short of eliminating everyone who doesn't conform to a strict definition of the word rational, I doubt any of these practices would do much good.

I think the key difference between Fascism and Socialism is that Fascism takes control of property because it is the *right of the state* to do so. Socialism takes control of property because it is the *right of the people* who live under the state to have that property, and the state is *enforcing* the rights of the people, not the rights of the state.

Yes, but eventually, when given power like that, most states become self-serving and thus the problem arises. You've got a group claiming to operate for the people, but serve only the elite. I think this flaw is present in any human society once the idealism of a revolution wears off.

The same people who think any kind of 'welfare' is communism are also the loudest voices for things like property tax relief, affordable colleges, mortgage bailouts, and other instances where the government takes money from one person and gives it to them just because it's 'fair'.

Not here good sir, I try my best not to trip over the fine fence of hypocracy. However, I think your post is dead on. Most people hold their ideals so long as it's convienent, then switch sides as soon as the grass looks greener.