Devil's advocate : what's wrong with socialism?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes , I AM seeing where you are going with this. I don't see what's wrong with that other than the fact I don't like lazy dependant people. If we can afford it, what's wrong with it?

You say "but we can't", ok, fair enough, but what if we either could, or could print money and nobody ever finds out? (exactly what we're doing to foreign countries right now)

What? It doesn't matter if anyone "finds out" or not. Increasing the money supply inversely impacts the value of the dollar.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are you saying your stupid freedom to property is more important than the risk of somebody robbing others or a person starving to death?

what's wrong with getting rid of incentives?

"Stupid freedom to property"??????????? Are you kidding? The right to private property is the very crux of the concept of individual liberty. If you don't understand that, you are at point 0 in understanding what this movement is all about. Seriously.

 

[Josh_LA]

What? It doesn't matter if anyone "finds out" or not. Increasing the money supply inversely impacts the value of the dollar.

Yes it does matter.

As long as people never need to cash out or redeem the value of the depleted dollar, they'll never have to care.

 

[Josh_LA]

"Stupid freedom to property"??????????? Are you kidding? The right to private property is the very crux of the concept of individual liberty. If you don't understand that, you are at point 0 in understanding what this movement is all about. Seriously.

I'm being devil's advocate, hello?

If I change back to my honest position people accuse me of being inconsistent. So, for the sake of argument, pretend like I am a stranger and give me whatever you got (but don't count that towards me traffic violations on the board)

 

[Josh_LA]

Ignoring ALL of the ethical questions (which are substantial) -- socialism is "wrong" on a simply pragmatic level for a society... in other words...

Socialism = FAIL!
If you need a LARGER-SCALE example than that... simply look at the results in the Soviet Union, or China in the Mao era, or Ethiopia, or any of the hundreds of countries that have tried "collective farms."

Long story made very short: If you like eating, you should not be so foolish as to advocate socialism. The socialist, like the thief, survives by stealing or "appropriating" the food grown by others -- it is a short-term solution; because eventually the farmers will cease to grow so much food (why should they if you are going to steal it all anyway?) And if you shoot the farmers, you die.

Anyone who fails to understand that (i.e. all socialists and "modern" economists ...but I repeat myself) is an idiot who deserves to starve.

Soviet Russia, pilgrims and Mao did not consider bankers of any validity and powr, if they did, all they had to do was print money to feed people.

If you believe that printing money is a bad thing (and it is), then Fascism and capitalism can never be bad, anybody who has too much uncirculated money can be denied its value (for example, if you believe Bill Gates is too rich, tell him "all your bank account are belong to us" and no money coming out of his bank account can be counted as money). As long as people have the right to deny usage and sharing of money they don't agree with or have control over, WE ARE FREE. (and actually, we DO, nobody is forcing you to use Fed Res money, good luck finding a person you trust with better money)

 

[tremendoustie]

But if you know your stuff, why does it matter if you have to argue with a million different positions.

Let me get back on track.

My OP was, that isn't it understandable to forcible rob some people to make the rest of the people happy. And isn't it understandable that when people are materially taken care of, they're less prone to crime. Isn't the possibility of having a society safer, happier, more stable and less unequal ALONE a good reason to force financial equality on people?

Yes, we agree that individualism is important, but can't (or shouldn't) utilitarian results override it?

I believe liberty is a more important good than material wealth. I think people will ultimately be happier as free people than as well fed slaves. Furthermore, I believe the initiation of violence is morally wrong, and I believe ends to not justify means.

Obviously, then, what I believe to be good is not what you (in your devil's advocate position) believe to be good, and what I believe to be moral, is not what you believe to be moral.

Morally, you are saying you believe in utilitarianism. That is, the ends do justify the means, and whatever needs to be done to achieve the greatest good, should be done (again, in your devil's advocate position).

I am a little confused on your list of "goods" though. Please rank them, in order of importance. Is it "safety" that is most important, or is it "happiness", for example. And, please give clear definitions for each.

 

[Josh_LA]

I believe liberty is a more important good than material wealth. I think people will ultimately be happier as free people than as well fed slaves. Furthermore, I believe the initiation of violence is morally wrong, and I believe ends to not justify means.

So, morally speaking, you do not owe anybody anything, and your belief that you own what you worked for is higher than the fact robbing you can save 10 lives RIGHT NOW?

 

[Josh_LA]

I am a little confused on your list of "goods" though. Please rank them, in order of importance. Is it "safety" that is most important, or is it "happiness", for example. And, please give clear definitions for each.

Happiness is subjective.
However, I think we can all agree if people were given unlimited amounts of food, one can still only eat 3 meals a day. Therefore, one who has eaten is happier and healthier than a person who has not eaten.

Safety, I believe negative safety is what I am talking about. Freedom from external harm. The less inequality we have, the less desire and motivation there is to rob and kill. Just like there's no incentive to work in a socialist society, there's less incentive to rob and steal, because there's nothing out there.


By this standard, Africans who are starving are neither capitalist nor socialist, they simply have nothing to gain, nothing to lose and no system that matters, because they literally have nothing. But, if an African country can jack up a printing press and print to Americans " African food stamps" on the trust that they'll pay us labor or gold some time down the future, and let's say, Americans are too rich to care or too busy to ask, we never ask for the real money, we can literally take mountains and millions of worthless African food stamps as long as we think it's OK, we don't mind being ripped off, and the rest of the world sees what we do (using and accepting African food stamps as charitable and good), we can get away with using fiat currency, and socialism!

So the question is, WHAT IF WE NEVER ASK FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN PAPER MONEY, WHY NOT KEEP PRINTING FRAUD MONEY, AND NEVER LOOK AT REALITY? WHY NOT IGNORE FACTS AND LIVE IN BLISSFUL IGNORANCE? WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST BELIEVING WE HAVE SOMETHING? Isn't capitalism all about creativity? If socialism can get away with fraud money, (thus never call it fraud money), is there anything wrong with it?

Like I said above, YES, there would be no incentive to work. But the UPSIDE IS, there'd be no incentive to commit crime either!

 

[Scofield]

Like I said above, YES, there would be no incentive to work. But the UPSIDE IS, there'd be no incentive to commit crime either!

False.

You've got to understand that eventually people will have enough of "equality." Individuals can only take so much before they decide they want to take back their individuality, and take control of their lives. Whether that be in a week, a month, a year, two years, ten years, or a hundred years or more. The People will eventually refuse to follow the orders of a single (or a few) dictator, it's human nature to do so.

You've also got to realize that just because we're all equal, doesn't mean crime will dissipate. There will still be people who murder other individuals (either for their own "happiness" or during a crime of passion), there will still be people who need to vent and they will take it out on others. Mental problems also aren't just going to magically disappear, so things like rape/serial killings/etc... will still occur.

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but nothing you're saying can ever work in reality. We both know this, and we both know this conversation can go on forever. You're not actually giving your true view, so regardless of what anyone says, you can disagree...because you're not able to have your view changed, as nothing you've said is actually your view (I hope). Yes, I realize I was just rambling on there at the end.

 

[WRellim]

Originally Posted by WRellim

Ignoring ALL of the ethical questions (which are substantial) -- socialism is "wrong" on a simply pragmatic level for a society... in other words...

Socialism = FAIL!
If you need a LARGER-SCALE example than that... simply look at the results in the Soviet Union, or China in the Mao era, or Ethiopia, or any of the hundreds of countries that have tried "collective farms."

Long story made very short: If you like eating, you should not be so foolish as to advocate socialism. The socialist, like the thief, survives by stealing or "appropriating" the food grown by others -- it is a short-term solution; because eventually the farmers will cease to grow so much food (why should they if you are going to steal it all anyway?) And if you shoot the farmers, you die.

Anyone who fails to understand that (i.e. all socialists and "modern" economists ...but I repeat myself) is an idiot who deserves to starve.

Soviet Russia, pilgrims and Mao did not consider bankers of any validity and powr, if they did, all they had to do was print money to feed people.

My post made ZERO mention of "money."

"Printed money" is typically created with a paper and/or cloth base -- while eating "fiber" is good as a digestive aid, it contains no nutritional value... hence whether a socialist system has bankers or not, money or not, they would still starve. (And all other forms of "currency" -- including PM's -- are equally devoid of food value.)

Like nearly all economists, investors, and politicians, socialists (and all "collectivists") and yes central bankers (especially fools like Bernanke) -- are all so urbanized, over-schooled, and thus dissociated from actual productive activity that they virtually cannot comprehend the root meanings of "productivity" or "wealth" (without which "money" in any form is worthless) -- and therefore they can no more comprehend how the entire system actually functions than the Melanesian's of the "Cargo Cults" could comprehend where the cargo truly came from.

If you believe that printing money is a bad thing (and it is), then Fascism and capitalism can never be bad, anybody who has too much uncirculated money can be denied its value (for example, if you believe Bill Gates is too rich, tell him "all your bank account are belong to us" and no money coming out of his bank account can be counted as money). As long as people have the right to deny usage and sharing of money they don't agree with or have control over, WE ARE FREE. (and actually, we DO, nobody is forcing you to use Fed Res money, good luck finding a person you trust with better money)

The rest of your response (above) is a non-sequitur, and seems to be presented as a red herring in an attempt to divert attention from your failure to address the actual points ...and therefore they will be ignored.



(In short, your attempt at being a "Devil's Advocate" for socialism, much like socialism itself, has utterly failed!)

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes it does matter.

As long as people never need to cash out or redeem the value of the depleted dollar, they'll never have to care.

And in what mythical land would that happen? It's called money for a reason. So people can use it as exchange for goods and services.

 

[Josh_LA]

And in what mythical land would that happen? It's called money for a reason. So people can use it as exchange for goods and services.

people don't exchange money if they don't have to. which is why most people dont spend it very wisely in this country. many dump them into black holes called "houses"

 

[Josh_LA]

False.

You've got to understand that eventually people will have enough of "equality." Individuals can only take so much before they decide they want to take back their individuality, and take control of their lives. Whether that be in a week, a month, a year, two years, ten years, or a hundred years or more. The People will eventually refuse to follow the orders of a single (or a few) dictator, it's human nature to do so.

You've also got to realize that just because we're all equal, doesn't mean crime will dissipate. There will still be people who murder other individuals (either for their own "happiness" or during a crime of passion), there will still be people who need to vent and they will take it out on others. Mental problems also aren't just going to magically disappear, so things like rape/serial killings/etc... will still occur.

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but nothing you're saying can ever work in reality. We both know this, and we both know this conversation can go on forever. You're not actually giving your true view, so regardless of what anyone says, you can disagree...because you're not able to have your view changed, as nothing you've said is actually your view (I hope). Yes, I realize I was just rambling on there at the end.

I agree, so if there's incentive or motivation for crime, there would be for work too. In fact, greed and desire would automatically be considered criminal (and even in today's mixed economy, it IS in certain contexts!)!. Since people can be so bored they'd commit crime, people can be so bored they'd work, even if there's no reward (today, we call that "art")

 

[Josh_LA]

My post made ZERO mention of "money."

"Printed money" is typically created with a paper and/or cloth base -- while eating "fiber" is good as a digestive aid, it contains no nutritional value... hence whether a socialist system has bankers or not, money or not, they would still starve. (And all other forms of "currency" -- including PM's -- are equally devoid of food value.)

Like nearly all economists, investors, and politicians, socialists (and all "collectivists") and yes central bankers (especially fools like Bernanke) -- are all so urbanized, over-schooled, and thus dissociated from actual productive activity that they virtually cannot comprehend the root meanings of "productivity" or "wealth" (without which "money" in any form is worthless) -- and therefore they can no more comprehend how the entire system actually functions than the Melanesian's of the "Cargo Cults" could comprehend where the cargo truly came from.



The rest of your response (above) is a non-sequitur, and seems to be presented as a red herring in an attempt to divert attention from your failure to address the actual points ...and therefore they will be ignored.



(In short, your attempt at being a "Devil's Advocate" for socialism, much like socialism itself, has utterly failed!)

No, that's exactly why I mentioned money, that's the only thing you left out and would've made my argument matter.

 

[tremendoustie]

So, morally speaking, you do not owe anybody anything, and your belief that you own what you worked for is higher than the fact robbing you can save 10 lives RIGHT NOW?

No, I believe I should voluntarily help those who need it.

Funding the government has nothing to do with your hypothetical of saving lives. That said, if someone were dying in front of me, and the only way I had to save them would be to steal some food, I'd do it, and pay it back later.

 

[tremendoustie]

Happiness is subjective.
However, I think we can all agree if people were given unlimited amounts of food, one can still only eat 3 meals a day. Therefore, one who has eaten is happier and healthier than a person who has not eaten.

Safety, I believe negative safety is what I am talking about. Freedom from external harm. The less inequality we have, the less desire and motivation there is to rob and kill. Just like there's no incentive to work in a socialist society, there's less incentive to rob and steal, because there's nothing out there.


By this standard, Africans who are starving are neither capitalist nor socialist, they simply have nothing to gain, nothing to lose and no system that matters, because they literally have nothing. But, if an African country can jack up a printing press and print to Americans " African food stamps" on the trust that they'll pay us labor or gold some time down the future, and let's say, Americans are too rich to care or too busy to ask, we never ask for the real money, we can literally take mountains and millions of worthless African food stamps as long as we think it's OK, we don't mind being ripped off, and the rest of the world sees what we do (using and accepting African food stamps as charitable and good), we can get away with using fiat currency, and socialism!

So the question is, WHAT IF WE NEVER ASK FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN PAPER MONEY, WHY NOT KEEP PRINTING FRAUD MONEY, AND NEVER LOOK AT REALITY? WHY NOT IGNORE FACTS AND LIVE IN BLISSFUL IGNORANCE? WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST BELIEVING WE HAVE SOMETHING? Isn't capitalism all about creativity? If socialism can get away with fraud money, (thus never call it fraud money), is there anything wrong with it?

Like I said above, YES, there would be no incentive to work. But the UPSIDE IS, there'd be no incentive to commit crime either!

Frankly, I didn't get a whole lot from all of this. If people don't work, money's worth nothing, because nothing is being produced. And, there will always be crime. I can't really understand much of the rest of what you're saying, it seems jumbled.

If you'll propose a consistent belief system and system of government, we can talk about it.

 

[Josh_LA]

Frankly, I didn't get a whole lot from all of this. If people don't work, money's worth nothing, because nothing is being produced. And, there will always be crime. I can't really understand much of the rest of what you're saying, it seems jumbled.

If you'll propose a consistent belief system and system of government, we can talk about it.

How about this :

America : from freedom to communism

America, a country once trusted to produce
Now, using this trust, printing money and dumping it on the mass.
What would be the problem of maintaining a perpetual inflationary economy as long as suckers are willing to take worthless paper money (or if they don't, we make them with a gun).
What's wrong with keep printing money and destroying our dollar?
So, if somebody owns printing press, he can form any government, not necessarily socialist, but as long as there's enough money to afford anything, what would be morally wrong with keeping people pacified and happy and drowning in worthless paper?
As long as citizens are happy and never know how to riot, they'll eventually starve to death because they never worked,

So my point here is.
Not so much socialism or forced robbery
But, what's so wrong with keeping people ignorant and pacified and lazy if they're happy and harmless?
Surely, as much as we have crime amongst ourselves, nobody has hurt the government or corporations who are raping us. So what's wrong with how they are using money manipulation to screw us if we never have to admit we're being screwed?

 

[tremendoustie]

How about this :

America : from freedom to communism

America, a country once trusted to produce
Now, using this trust, printing money and dumping it on the mass.
What would be the problem of maintaining a perpetual inflationary economy as long as suckers are willing to take worthless paper money (or if they don't, we make them with a gun).
What's wrong with keep printing money and destroying our dollar?
So, if somebody owns printing press, he can form any government, not necessarily socialist, but as long as there's enough money to afford anything, what would be morally wrong with keeping people pacified and happy and drowning in worthless paper?
As long as citizens are happy and never know how to riot, they'll eventually starve to death because they never worked,

So my point here is.
Not so much socialism or forced robbery
But, what's so wrong with keeping people ignorant and pacified and lazy if they're happy and harmless?
Surely, as much as we have crime amongst ourselves, nobody has hurt the government or corporations who are raping us. So what's wrong with how they are using money manipulation to screw us if we never have to admit we're being screwed?

From whose perspective is this potentially good? You admit the people will eventually starve ... I still don't get what you're proposing ...