Socialism Forum!

Not all communities across the country are the same, and where I was born, in my youth I clearly remember people quite diligently helping one another. Not only that, but there was a closer relation between the different races, not to say there were not any who were racists. My parents, now in their late 90's still help others and receive help from others when needed. There used to be much more interaction between family, friends, and neighbors than what exists today, and part of it may be the fact that most people no longer live where they were born, having to search out employment where it exists, separating family and reducing the ability to create long term friends and neighbors. People can be complete strangers in the neighborhood they live in, concentrating on work more than living.

 

and this is exactly why solutions at the federal level are necessary

a goal of socialism is to rectify this as well . . .

 

And I would say that is exactly why solutions at the Federal level are improper, and if unable to be handled at the local level they should be approached at government working towards State level, leaving Federal to solve problems which affect all States equally.

Socialism only brings everyone down to a more common denominator, like grading students on a curve. While lowering standards may increase output, it diminishes quality.

 

to some degree i agree with you

for example, the income level to qualify for food stamps is the same in both manhattan and glendive

having lived in both places, i can assert that it is a hell of a lot cheaper to live in the latter, and the level could be lower

on the other hand, if montana was left to fend for itself there probably wouldn't be any food stamp program here . . .

if you are below the common denominator, are you not then being brought up?

i don't get the bell curve analogy anyways, what "quality" do the poor have to lose?

 

No, but I think it is important in this discussion to recognise that private ownership is not a natural property arrangement. If we are to consider how much government coercion we would be prepared to allow (which was your suggestion in the first place) we should look at how much we are currently living with, and compare that to what would exist under a socialist arrangement. Do you agree?

 

Then people could move to other parts of the country where they might find better takings, like they did long ago. My family moved around the country when I was young as my Dad had to find work to support us.

It depends on what you are measuring. While the poor may have little to lose, what have they gained if they destroy the society that provides for them?

 

"better takings", says it all

"society that provides for them", um, by that i mean an organized, even-handed government effort, and you mean random acts of kindness that may ignore those that need it most?

 

Just trying to stay on topic, socialism.

An organized "even-handed?" government effort only allows the legitimization of theft by government by referring to it as a tax. Those so-called random acts of kindness, which are sometimes called charitable, do not require criminal actions.

Just because the modern world societies can produce many things does not mean that being a member of the society entitles all to freely share in the produce.

 

this is an obsession of yours, sorry, not a fact, and for me, no longer a debating point

if members of a society are not legally allowed to kill each other, why should they be allowed to let each other die?

 

wankers unite!

 

Uhhh, wow. First off it flat-out scares me there are people who would even want to be called socialists, but guaranteed they are not wealthy, successful business owners, they are hippie liberals who think other people should work hard so they can sit on their butts and do nothing.

My definition of a happy, healthy, fulfilled life is where I can achieve my goal of becoming very wealthy and very successful while at the same time contributing meaningful art (and commercial products) to the world. How am I going to achieve my goals of living a better life if I work my butt off and put in 80-120 hour weeks and make a load of money, but then it's mostly all taken away by the government for social programs I don't support and to fund a bunch of other wasteful initiatives by inept government bureaucrats.

Let me just ask you people who actually think you're socialists, do you believe the government does a great job of running ANYTHING right now, let alone everything? How can you actually WANT them to be in charge of MORE things in society?! Clearly charities are much more efficient at spending the money they're given than the government, that is a provable, researched, undeniable fact, so why do you think that people like me, and the other hard-working, young, successful people I know are going to work our butts off so that other people who don't work hard and have no motivation can live a comfy life?! Get real!

 

uhhh, wow

and here you are wasting your no doubt exceedingly valuable time, posting in a forum run by and largely frequented by hippie liberals

 

Theft can be defined as taking the property of another without that person's "freely" given consent.

If you can't recognize the difference between the two instances, that eliminates any possibility of a rational debate.

 

You can define socialism most clearly and concisely with just three words, "misery loves company."

 

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

 

The true Socialist would only point out the fact that equalization was indeed achieved, goal accomplished.

 

That professor probably should be fired if he thinks that is a reasonable analogy to a socialist society.

It's about as accurate as saying capitalism = one person in the class getting an A, the rest of the class gets Fs, with the A-grader sabotaging the other students' work, selling them into slavery, bribing the professor and setting the classroom on fire.

 

In a real Socialist environment the Professor would just grade on a curve and all the class would receive A's.

Problem solved.

 

grading is not eating

 

Then plant a garden or forage, there's food everywhere if you just look.