Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why socialism is bad

Page 8 of 9 [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sargon
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 207
Location: Fairfax, VA

08 Apr 2008, 6:31 pm

For reference, Japan's economy while less free than the U.S. is not really a socialist economy. According to Heritage's economic freedom index, they rank 17 (http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... m?id=Japan) in the world (72.5% of the economy can be considered free).

In reference to Matsuiny, non-market would imply the government. Attempting societal equality (read: income equality) is a wasteful and generally pointless endeavor. Essentially, there is an economic pie, and this pie is not even distrusted, so people attempt to fight over the shares of the pie to attain a more "fair" distribution of it. Instead of fighting over the distribution of the pie, growing the pie would benefit everyone (wheres fighting over the distribution causes you to waste resources since it costs money just to change money from one person to another, not to mention other costs). Aside from that, I don't see how you can morally justify saying that the money I earn (through my hard work and intelligence) ought to go to some poorer person who probably is not working as hard or is as smart as I. If it is about compassion, one can be compassionate with one's own money, not others. Also, if you could live in a world where 5% of the people make $20k/year and 95% of the people make $100k/year vs. one where 100% of the people make $35k/year, which would you choose? In the first world, there are some people who are poorer, most people will be better off in it than the second world where everyone is equally poor. For reference, your expected value in the 1st world = $95k (.95*100=95), and in the second world, it is $35k (1*35), so it should be a no brainer.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

08 Apr 2008, 6:56 pm

Sargon wrote:
For reference, Japan's economy while less free than the U.S. is not really a socialist economy. According to Heritage's economic freedom index, they rank 17 (http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... m?id=Japan) in the world (72.5% of the economy can be considered free).

In reference to Matsuiny, non-market would imply the government. Attempting societal equality (read: income equality) is a wasteful and generally pointless endeavor. Essentially, there is an economic pie, and this pie is not even distrusted, so people attempt to fight over the shares of the pie to attain a more "fair" distribution of it. Instead of fighting over the distribution of the pie, growing the pie would benefit everyone (wheres fighting over the distribution causes you to waste resources since it costs money just to change money from one person to another, not to mention other costs). Aside from that, I don't see how you can morally justify saying that the money I earn (through my hard work and intelligence) ought to go to some poorer person who probably is not working as hard or is as smart as I. If it is about compassion, one can be compassionate with one's own money, not others. Also, if you could live in a world where 5% of the people make $20k/year and 95% of the people make $100k/year vs. one where 100% of the people make $35k/year, which would you choose? In the first world, there are some people who are poorer, most people will be better off in it than the second world where everyone is equally poor. For reference, your expected value in the 1st world = $95k (.95*100=95), and in the second world, it is $35k (1*35), so it should be a no brainer.


communism is not the same as socialism. if you mean communism then I agree it does not work, just ask the people of china or cuba. Here is the definition of socialism

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

here is communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-0

even in ocuntries like china and sweden. I agree that they are mixed, I screwed up on that one, the government to does intervene on economic policy and there are some socialist policies being implemented.



Sargon
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 207
Location: Fairfax, VA

08 Apr 2008, 7:14 pm

Quote:
communism is not the same as socialism. if you mean communism then I agree it does not work, just ask the people of china or cuba. Here is the definition of socialism

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

here is communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-0

even in ocuntries like china and sweden. I agree that they are mixed, I screwed up on that one, the government to does intervene on economic policy and there are some socialist policies being implemented.


I'm not saying socialism = communism, so I'm not sure where to are getting that idea from.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

08 Apr 2008, 7:16 pm

Sargon wrote:
Quote:
communism is not the same as socialism. if you mean communism then I agree it does not work, just ask the people of china or cuba. Here is the definition of socialism

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

here is communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-0

even in ocuntries like china and sweden. I agree that they are mixed, I screwed up on that one, the government to does intervene on economic policy and there are some socialist policies being implemented.


I'm not saying socialism = communism, so I'm not sure where to are getting that idea from.


My point is that I do not think all forms of socialism are bad



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Apr 2008, 7:27 pm

matsuiny2004 wrote:
By non market do you mean a social economy? and what is wrong with at least ateempting societal equality?
I mean, an economy that works without a market based pricing mechanism. Social economies don't necessarily violate this. I never argued against attempting social equality either, I merely stated that this was a part of socialist ideology. If I ignored that, then my definition would work for feudalist systems and a number of other clearly non-socialist systems.
Quote:
communism is not the same as socialism. if you mean communism then I agree it does not work, just ask the people of china or cuba. Here is the definition of socialism

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

here is communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#cite_note-0

even in ocuntries like china and sweden. I agree that they are mixed, I screwed up on that one, the government to does intervene on economic policy and there are some socialist policies being implemented.

Umm.... britannica is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It tells of the history of socialism. Frankly, my definition worked reasonably well. Sargon can claim that government is the element replacing the market, and in most cases it is, but I did not want to dismiss off-hand more utopian or anarchistic ideas of socialism. Frankly, once again, my issue comes down to defining a "socialist" policy. It is not something I really engage in because socialism isn't a policy, it is a system of organizing the economy.

Quote:
My point is that I do not think all forms of socialism are bad

Ok... that isn't a point I can really make much of. I would say that we don't have a form of working socialism that can provide a quality of life equivalent to capitalism, but you might be referring to "socialist" policies, but that could lead to a very difficult argument as in order to falsify it, I have to say that the most perfectly designed policy ever by a government could not make life better, and well, if this argument is designed right then it may well be true but useless from a standpoint taking in more real factors.



Sargon
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 207
Location: Fairfax, VA

08 Apr 2008, 7:31 pm

Quote:
My point is that I do not think all forms of socialism are bad


Not all forms might not be "bad" (in a sense similar to that cutting off a finger is not as bad as cutting off a hand); but if there are better, more pareto optimal systems out there, why not use those (i.e. capitalism)? I would submit that the people in a more free, capitalist country are better off than those under a less free, socialist one (and I mean free in the economic sense).



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

08 Apr 2008, 7:34 pm

Sargon wrote:
Quote:
My point is that I do not think all forms of socialism are bad


Not all forms might not be "bad" (in a sense similar to that cutting off a finger is not as bad as cutting off a hand); but if there are better, more pareto optimal systems out there, why not use those (i.e. capitalism)? I would submit that the people in a more free, capitalist country are better off than those under a less free, socialist one (and I mean free in the economic sense).


Personally I support social democracy which in theory would legislate economic regualtion, but the people would still have a constitution, freedom of speech, etc. that would be the capitalist part.



Sargon
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 207
Location: Fairfax, VA

08 Apr 2008, 7:38 pm

Quote:
Personally I support social democracy which in theory would legislate economic regualtion, but the people would still have a constitution, freedom of speech, etc. that would be the capitalist part.


It sounds like you are mixing capitalism up with democratic freedom. Capitalism does not necessarily care if the people have a constitution or freedom of speech (Singapore for example).



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

08 Apr 2008, 8:02 pm

Sargon wrote:
Quote:
Personally I support social democracy which in theory would legislate economic regualtion, but the people would still have a constitution, freedom of speech, etc. that would be the capitalist part.


It sounds like you are mixing capitalism up with democratic freedom. Capitalism does not necessarily care if the people have a constitution or freedom of speech (Singapore for example).


then I am a person that supports the ideals of democracy and a mixed economy.



Averick
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

09 Apr 2008, 12:50 am

Activistic and environmental socialism isn't so bad.



Reodor_Felgen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,300

09 Apr 2008, 8:52 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Norway has a socialist economy too 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy


Mixed economy doesn't mean socialism, but a mix between both capitalism and socialism. Mixed economy usually have a strong emphasis on economic liberty, while at the same time keeping the free education and healthcare. This economic system is used in many european countries.

Currently, the party which have increased most in followers in Norway, is The Progress Party--which supports a mixed economy with the most important elements from capitalism.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

09 Apr 2008, 5:43 pm

Reodor_Felgen wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Norway has a socialist economy too 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy


Mixed economy doesn't mean socialism, but a mix between both capitalism and socialism. Mixed economy usually have a strong emphasis on economic liberty, while at the same time keeping the free education and healthcare. This economic system is used in many european countries.

Currently, the party which have increased most in followers in Norway, is The Progress Party--which supports a mixed economy with the most important elements from capitalism.



If a mixed economy uses socialism then doesn't that mean not all of socialism is bad?



Sargon
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 207
Location: Fairfax, VA

09 Apr 2008, 5:57 pm

Quote:
If a mixed economy uses socialism then doesn't that mean not all of socialism is bad?


No, because it isn't really socialism. Like Reodor said, citizens in countries like Norway are mostly free to operate businesses, but are heavily taxed to pay for various programs. This style of country would be called a Welfare State (or "Mixed" if you prefer to avoid negative connotations), not a Socialist State. Promoting "welfare" is different than promoting socialism, and there are many key differences between the two (one of the main being property rights). So, it sounds like you really support "Social Democracy" and the welfare state, Matsuiny, not socialism.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

09 Apr 2008, 5:59 pm

Sargon wrote:
Quote:
If a mixed economy uses socialism then doesn't that mean not all of socialism is bad?


No, because it isn't really socialism. Like Reodor said, citizens in countries like Norway are mostly free to operate businesses, but are heavily taxed to pay for various programs. This style of country would be called a Welfare State (or "Mixed" if you prefer to avoid negative connotations), not a Socialist State. Promoting "welfare" is different than promoting socialism, and there are many key differences between the two (one of the main being property rights). So, it sounds like you really support "Social Democracy" and the welfare state, Matsuiny, not socialism.


If you put it that way I guess then yes. :) There are people that would not agree with that point though.



Reodor_Felgen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,300

10 Apr 2008, 3:40 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
If a mixed economy uses socialism then doesn't that mean not all of socialism is bad?


Nobody said that all socialistic elements were bad. Communism, on the other hand (in real life, and not in Marx' imagination) is.



Izaak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 981
Location: Perth, Western Australia

10 Apr 2008, 6:19 am

Socialism, and socialistic elements, are ALL good... if you live in make believe land where the context of how you get the resources to provide all those lovely "benefits" doesn't matter.

What's even worse... is you all know the only way you manage to GET all these lovely resources and benefits you are all so eager to attribute to socialism (or socialistic elements), and you don't care.