Explaining Socialism

[ronin sparthos]

Maybe we should privatize police, fire department, and the roads?

I didn't pay my bill to the police department and got robbed before the next paycheck came in. Do I deserve my fate?

[Ikarys]

Not to mention I'd wager the fire department, and likely the police department as well, spend a lot more money than they can possibly take in. It would turn into a health insurance scenario where everyone needs insurance to possibly pay for the fire department to show up or police to investigate a crime. And so anyone who doesn't have good money won't get any service at all. Not seeing how that works for the good of...anyone. At minimum the rich people paying less taxes will likely be spending that money on their own private security, so all it does is fuck poor people.

Now you are catching on, at least with some points. Those who can afford it already have their own security to stop problems before they require police intervention. In essence, they already pay twice; once for themselves, and again through taxes for the have-nots, whom if it isn't abundantly clear, are the people causing problems that require a police force in the first place. What do we want them to do? "Oh, you need to pay more taxes, as part of the underlying social contract!" When a contract doesn't work for all parties involved, it gets amended, and if people don't want to play ball, they back out of said contract. If someone said to congress, "I don't like the amount of money I'm paying on taxes, because I don't see a return out of it; how about we re-negotiate?" you'd get a big fat chuckle!

Ask any red-blooded American if they'd rather pay their taxes to support state troopers and municipal police, or if they'd rather pay for all the bullets they could buy, and implement a stand-your-ground law on their own front porch. We'd have a lot less crime, and we'd have a lot less lazy police giving out parking tickets, too.

[Ikarys]

Pretty sure Ikarys was just trolling the lot of you.

The problem isn't necessarily whether or not someone believes you are serious, but whether or not they use the same definitions for what a serious conversation entails. That's why all the bluster and rhetoric is apropos to a thread about "socialism", wherein we immediately begin to talk about politics in a partisan light. Self proclaimed liberals and conservatives argue and vent, much like the cartoon in OP, about what "socialism" means for America, but neither party can actually agree on what the definition of socialism is.

[Ashmada]

In the case of (some) roads, it's not necessarily a bad idea. Going from our (Benelux) public freeways to France's private freeways, one really notices which are better maintained (the private ones); and in the french system it's the drivers that pay for said maintenance, whereas in a public system the residents pay for the wear and tear caused by all users, including that of heavy trucks crossing the country.

Edit:

Now you are catching on, at least with some points. Those who can afford it already have their own security to stop problems before they require police intervention. In essence, they already pay twice; once for themselves, and again through taxes for the have-nots, whom if it isn't abundantly clear, are the people causing problems that require a police force in the first place. What do we want them to do? "Oh, you need to pay more taxes, as part of the underlying social contract!" When a contract doesn't work for all parties involved, it gets amended, and if people don't want to play ball, they back out of said contract. If someone said to congress, "I don't like the amount of money I'm paying on taxes, because I don't see a return out of it; how about we re-negotiate?" you'd get a big fat chuckle!

Ask any red-blooded American if they'd rather pay their taxes to support state troopers and municipal police, or if they'd rather pay for all the bullets they could buy, and implement a stand-your-ground law on their own front porch. We'd have a lot less crime, and we'd have a lot less lazy police giving out parking tickets, too.

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/...uper_super.jpg

[Dimmauk]

I didn't pay my bill to the police department and got robbed before the next paycheck came in. Do I deserve my fate?

I don't think the police would have stopped the robbery anyways. Unless you were on the police protection plan that places unit at your house.

[Greatguardian]

The problem isn't necessarily whether or not someone believes you are serious, but whether or not they use the same definitions for what a serious conversation entails. That's why all the bluster and rhetoric is apropos to a thread about "socialism", wherein we immediately begin to talk about politics in a partisan light. Self proclaimed liberals and conservatives argue and vent, much like the cartoon in OP, about what "socialism" means for America, but neither party can actually agree on what the definition of socialism is.

Oh, I have no qualm with your intentions. It's a fair point. I'd just rather not deal with people eventually progressing to excessive ad hominem because they make conclusions under the impression that you support certain ideals just because you initiate conversation about them.

[Kanriel]

I realized when his post after was "To be serious..." that he was likely trolling in some fashion, but it still makes for an interesting conversation.

Now you are catching on, at least with some points. Those who can afford it already have their own security to stop problems before they require police intervention. In essence, they already pay twice; once for themselves, and again through taxes for the have-nots, whom if it isn't abundantly clear, are the people causing problems that require a police force in the first place. What do we want them to do? "Oh, you need to pay more taxes, as part of the underlying social contract!" When a contract doesn't work for all parties involved, it gets amended, and if people don't want to play ball, they back out of said contract. If someone said to congress, "I don't like the amount of money I'm paying on taxes, because I don't see a return out of it; how about we re-negotiate?" you'd get a big fat chuckle!

Ask any red-blooded American if they'd rather pay their taxes to support state troopers and municipal police, or if they'd rather pay for all the bullets they could buy, and implement a stand-your-ground law on their own front porch. We'd have a lot less crime, and we'd have a lot less lazy police giving out parking tickets, too.

Problem is that not everyone is quite in that situation. Coworker of mine who lives in a nice, rich neighborhood had his tires slashed yesterday and was late to work because he was filing a police report. He personally could not afford any sort of investigation since he's spending his money to afford living in that neighborhood.

Though I guess it depends on your definition of "have-nots". Is a 500k homeowner a "have-not" or a "have"? If they're a "have-not", at what point does democracy come in and take from the "have"s considering how largely they're outnumbered?

And for the stand-your-ground law bit...what happens during all that time between your front porch and your place of work?

[Dimmauk]

I realized when his post after was "To be serious..." that he was likely trolling in some fashion, but it still makes for an interesting conversation.



Problem is that not everyone is quite in that situation. Coworker of mine who lives in a nice, rich neighborhood had his tires slashed yesterday and was late to work because he was filing a police report. He personally could not afford any sort of investigation since he's spending his money to afford living in that neighborhood.

Though I guess it depends on your definition of "have-nots". Is a 500k homeowner a "have-not" or a "have"? If they're a "have-not", at what point does democracy come in and take from the "have"s considering how largely they're outnumbered?

And for the stand-your-ground law bit...what happens during all that time between your front porch and your place of work?

Castle law?

[Ikarys]

And for the stand-your-ground law bit...what happens during all that time between your front porch and your place of work?

Which is precisely what I think the argument for socialist policies should be. Socialism is not an affront to democracy or un-American in any way. It is easy to associate socialism with communism, and to associate communism with totalitarianism / 20th century war-machine-state politics. The problem is that in trying to defend or demonize the name of a philosophy, like socialism, we pay very little attention to why these policies would be good for everyone involved. The people to convince aren't nodding in agreement on what socialism is; the people who need convincing genuinely wouldn't care about a class war of attrition in the streets where everyone had to pay for their own social services, and fail to acknowledge that we already have socialist policies which are not only accepted, but critical, to American prosperity up to this point.

[Pirian]

Socialism sees the gain of the individual as the success of the society, and so the individual needs to give back to the society that allowed them to gain the position they hold. But, it also sees the failings of the individual as the failing of the society, and it thinks that it should provide for the failed individual because of its perceived failure.

An individual grows up to be a crack head? Where was society to teach the child to deal with their problems in a productive manner? Is that the parents responsibility? Who teaches the parent how to be an effective parent? Do they learn from their parents and use their upbringing as an example? Then where was society in the previous generation? Socialist see that society has a big bill to pay off in order to correct the mistakes of many generations, but once that bill is paid, then it assumes there will be far fewer failings of the society, and thus, failed individuals, and this will benefit not just the individual, but the society as a whole.

[Ashmada]

That's a nice summary.

[Demosthenes11]

important distinction: it would be society's duty, not the government's duty. The government is just the vessel with which society uses.

[hey]

Ask any red-blooded American if they'd rather pay their taxes to support state troopers and municipal police, or if they'd rather pay for all the bullets they could buy, and implement a stand-your-ground law on their own front porch. We'd have a lot less crime, and we'd have a lot less lazy police giving out parking tickets, too.

I'll take the police force, thanks.

[Ashmada]

One thing this thread perfectly illustrates is the fact that socialism is intrinsically more idealistic than conservatism.

And naïveté is the usual criticism levied by the cynic towards the idealist.

[Pirian]

important distinction: it would be society's duty, not the government's duty. The government is just the vessel with which society uses.

This is true, but in a Democratic Socialist society the government is suppose to embody what it is the society wants to be (through democratic elections of representatives), and thus the government can be seen as a sample representation of society, and could be considered the "society"

[Greatguardian]

One thing this thread perfectly illustrates is the fact that socialism is intrinsically more idealistic than conservatism.

And naïveté is the usual criticism levied by the cynic towards the idealist.

I would argue that contemporary liberalism is equally cynical, to be perfectly honest. Both liberalism and conservatism of the 21st century have developed in post-modern western societies, which are fundamentally opposed to 20th century idealistic modernism. 21st century liberalism only looks progressive relative to 21st century conservatism - an extremely poor benchmark.

In the grand scheme of things, it could be argued that post-modern/21st century liberalism is more dangerous to a society than post-modern/21-century conservatism because at least the latter does not pretend to be making forward progress.

Edit: Note that I'm not addressing socialism directly. I'm not mixing up the terms, just addressing a tangent. Socialism is generally a holdover of 20th century modernism, which I would imagine is more prevalent over in the EU (where you're from, yes?). It pretty much doesn't exist any more in the context of the United States. Even our progressives are post-modern. Americans have forgotten how to dream.

[Demosthenes11]

One thing this thread perfectly illustrates is the fact that socialism is intrinsically more idealistic than conservatism.

And naïveté is the usual criticism levied by the cynic towards the idealist.

I'm not sure how many socialists are actually in this thread. I know I'm not, I'm a pretty good mix. Just because there are parts of society you wish to be more socialist does not a socialist make

[Niiro]

The fact that people feel the need to make that distinction is part of the problem.

[Greatguardian]

I'm not sure how many socialists are actually in this thread. I know I'm not, I'm a pretty good mix. Just because there are parts of society you wish to be more socialist does not a socialist make

What makes a socialist then?

Serious question. These labels are always so interesting. These are such nebulous concepts, even in (or rather, especially in) academia. There is no right or wrong answer, really. It's silly to dumb down entire worldviews and living philosophies into generic labels and catch-all terms. What traits or beliefs would someone have to hold for you to believe that they are a socialist? What traits or beliefs do you hold that differentiate you from this label? How might the characteristics you assign to the term "socialist" differ from those that other people assign it? How might those differences affect people's ability to hold a coherent discussion on these topics?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

One thing this thread perfectly illustrates is the fact that socialism is intrinsically more idealistic than conservatism.

And naïveté is the usual criticism levied by the cynic towards the idealist.

Except that worldwide socialist policies are in effect and are very successful ( as indicated in the OP concerning education and healthcare, for example ), whereas conservative policies are not as widespread and have proven to have destroyed economies.

Ideally, I would say your naïveté provides me with a cynical criticism to levy against you for attempting to sound wiser than what you've expertly betrayed in two sentences. I'll leave that criticism for the audience to fill.