What is socialism?

[reverendjeremiah]

Ashedant is a Progressive.

Sae, I saw your grid, you are right near that line seperating the grid between liberal and libertarian.

It means personally you want as much freedom as you can get, but that you want your government to "ensure" certain things, wether it be public schools or welfare or whatever it was that you put on that test that government service you wanted to have.

I would say you are a very, VERY light socialist, and an extremist when it comes to personal freedoms from the image you posted.

[theVOID]

I don't believe in equality, but fairness. And we really should give people non-miliitary power (and the "right" to weapons). I believe that the best hands should recieve the tools.

More important than all these though, is that nobody starves or thirsts, and everyone has at least shelter.

That's consistent with my position, don't know about the "best hands best tools" shit though, the tools end up in whatever hands they do and it's none of my business to order them elsewhere.

You might qualify as a "Libertarian Socialist" though some of them seem like they just want to storm every corporation and business, arrest every employer and appoint their own people while giving all the shares to the employees - I think that people owning their production is a good idea, but they have to do it the right way - Start a business, buy shares in one you work for, form a collective to purchase businesses and join unions - But to take it by force is completely immoral.

---

Ashedant is a Progressive.

Sae, I saw your grid, you are right near that line seperating the grid between liberal and libertarian.

It means personally you want as much freedom as you can get, but that you want your government to "ensure" certain things, wether it be public schools or welfare or whatever it was that you put on that test that government service you wanted to have.

I would say you are a very, VERY light socialist, and an extremist when it comes to personal freedoms from the image you posted.

She seems much more of a left-libertarian to me, having some social policies doesn't make you a socialist, even a "light" one - She's much less of a socialist than you and you insist on not being called that.

How can you be "Extreme" on personal freedoms? The only extreme part is thwarting these freedoms.

[Violet]

Sae, I saw your grid, you are right near that line seperating the grid between liberal and libertarian.

It means personally you want as much freedom as you can get, but that you want your government to "ensure" certain things, wether it be public schools or welfare or whatever it was that you put on that test that government service you wanted to have.

I would say you are a very, VERY light socialist, and an extremist when it comes to personal freedoms from the image you posted.

I don't mind private schools existing... but the government does need to have an option available for those with no/little money. Whether you call it public school or vouchers is really a question in it's own. Social security also needs to continue, and i don't mind the government opening it up to donations so long as they continue to maintain it. Health the same.

I don't think I'm an extremist... if you make a rule i won't follow: i'm not going to go blow up a hundred people or mine the roads... i'm just not going to follow it

That's consistent with my position, don't know about the "best hands best tools" shit though, the tools end up in whatever hands they do and it's none of my business to order them elsewhere.

If we're under the ideal of a somewhat regulated public market, it is simply that the most reputable doctors are the first ones expensive/new medical equipment go to. It's the same understanding I have towards the best marksman in the military being the first one to receive the high-end rifle. If you have the money to afford the price of these things without being on the top end, i don't mind you buying it... but it's a priority system to me if you don't.

You might qualify as a "Libertarian Socialist" though some of them seem like they just want to storm every corporation and business, arrest every employer and appoint their own people while giving all the shares to the employees - I think that people owning their production is a good idea, but they have to do it the right way - Start a business, buy shares in one you work for, form a collective to purchase businesses and join unions - But to take it by force is completely immoral.

There is only one type of situation in which that course of action is defensible (that being when the country is in vital need of their assets and cannot obtain them fast enough any other way). Outside of that, the position is untenable (and especially impractical).

[reverendjeremiah]

She seems much more of a left-libertarian to me, having some social policies doesn't make you a socialist, even a "light" one - She's much less of a socialist than you and you insist on not being called that.

How can you be "Extreme" on personal freedoms? The only extreme part is thwarting these freedoms.

Do you want me to be a socialist? I will become a socialist for you if you want me to Void.

Do you normally answer your own questions? You ask how someone can be extreme on personal freedoms, then you answer it in the next sentence.

My work here is done.

P.S. - feel free to swing over to the "classical liberal" topic where I post a press release letter from the Libertarian national committee Director of Communications inviting all Libertarians and other Americans to come "join the tea party".

[theVOID]

I don't mind private schools existing... but the government does need to have an option available for those with no/little money. Whether you call it public school or vouchers is really a question in it's own. Social security also needs to continue, and i don't mind the government opening it up to donations so long as they continue to maintain it. Health the same.

Agree, state monopolies on education aren't a good thing imo, it tends to get more expensive while performance decreases. Children cannot be held responsible for themselves thus I do believe that there is a social responsibility to provide them with equal opportunities, subsidies or vouchers for private schools seems a better solution to me, make parents with high incomes write their own checks, give discounts for middle income families and provide free education for poor families - At the least we need to ensure that all children can get a good education regardless of their families fiscal situation.

Social security is insolvent, It should realistically only be available for those who have used all their own capital, their savings and home equity - The rich at the very least shouldn't be able to qualify, nor should they qualify for state funded healthcare. Yes, people should have to sell their homes to qualify, so they don't get to pass their homes on to their children, well tough - If you are going to take from the working population for your retirement and do it while sitting on a few hundred thousand dollars of equity you're morally bankrupt, it's like saying "Hey you who is working hard and paying taxes! Yes you! I'm retired and need an income, so give me your cash! But I'm going to keep my house!"

I don't think I'm an extremist... if you make a rule i won't follow: i'm not going to go blow up a hundred people or mine the roads... i'm just not going to follow it

Agreed, nobody should have ANY say on what you can do with your own being.

If we're under the ideal of a somewhat regulated public market, it is simply that the most reputable doctors are the first ones expensive/new medical equipment go to.

What if the doctors all live in some rich suburb? Should the best equipment go there? I doubt it, ANY state funding needs to be distributed evenly, equal opportunity is about all people being treated equally by the state.

It's the same understanding I have towards the best marksman in the military being the first one to receive the high-end rifle. If you have the money to afford the price of these things without being on the top end, i don't mind you buying it... but it's a priority system to me if you don't.

I agree with you as far as military spending goes, it's all about efficient spending, that's fine, but your earlier example wasn't that much of a priority system, it should be the priority of the recipients and not the priority of the providers.

You might qualify as a "Libertarian Socialist" though some of them seem like they just want to storm every corporation and business, arrest every employer and appoint their own people while giving all the shares to the employees - I think that people owning their production is a good idea, but they have to do it the right way - Start a business, buy shares in one you work for, form a collective to purchase businesses and join unions - But to take it by force is completely immoral.

There is only one type of situation in which that course of action is defensible (that being when the country is in vital need of their assets and cannot obtain them fast enough any other way). Outside of that, the position is untenable (and especially impractical).
[/quote]

Except it's NOT their assets, the property belongs to the person who owns it, the only time that would ever be applicable as far as I'm concerned is if the business in question was found guilty in a court of stealing the business or assets, in that case a seizure and redistribution is justified - I really doubt your corporatists state would give the business to the workers though, they would sell it to someone else and the workers would be no better for it - They would simply use the money they had acquired to work towards whatever agenda they think will get them reelected.

[Violet]

Agree, state monopolies on education aren't a good thing imo, it tends to get more expensive while performance decreases. Children cannot be held responsible for themselves thus I do believe that there is a social responsibility to provide them with equal opportunities, subsidies or vouchers for private schools seems a better solution to me, make parents with high incomes write their own checks, give discounts for middle income families and provide free education for poor families - At the least we need to ensure that all children can get a good education regardless of their families fiscal situation.

I think vouchers could be a better idea in the long run, but I haven't thought about it enough for me to decide between them yet.

Social security is insolvent, It should realistically only be available for those who have used all their own capital, their savings and home equity - The rich at the very least shouldn't be able to qualify, nor should they qualify for state funded healthcare. Yes, people should have to sell their homes to qualify, so they don't get to pass their homes on to their children, well tough - If you are going to take from the working population for your retirement and do it while sitting on a few hundred thousand dollars of equity you're morally bankrupt, it's like saying "Hey you who is working hard and paying taxes! Yes you! I'm retired and need an income, so give me your cash! But I'm going to keep my house!"

It's kind of sucky to work all your life to build/buy your house, and then live there long enough for you to become attached to it, only to lose it when you run out of money. Old people are a major part of at least the society in alaska (almost everyone important is old and lots of them have retired and still serve the community on various boards/volunteer work). Four old people died in the last year around where I live and the world seems somewhat emptier without ever hearing them on morning talk radio or seeing them out helping their sons prepare for fishing season. Perhaps I'm simply more community minded... but it really doesn't hurt me to take a small amount of what I make and give it to old people that have retired... infact I'd rather do that than not.

I agree that the rich do not need welfare supporting them... but doesn't our system already screen many of them out?

Agreed, nobody should have ANY say on what you can do with your own being.

That doesn't give someone an excuse to be outright rude of course... but the social ramifications of that are bad to the point that it's almost redundant to illegalize such

What if the doctors all live in some rich suburb? Should the best equipment go there? I doubt it, ANY state funding needs to be distributed evenly, equal opportunity is about all people being treated equally by the state.

If all the doctors lived in a rich suburb, they should find themselves with very few patients... as many of their potential customers would either be dead before they got there or would consider their injury to not be grave enough to warrant the trip.

Anyhow, people are airlifted from the hospital(s?) in soldotna and homer to anchorage perhaps daily... so in a sense we already live with this as a reality. It shouldn't be a problem in the lower 48 very often though.

I agree with you as far as military spending goes, it's all about efficient spending, that's fine, but your earlier example wasn't that much of a priority system, it should be the priority of the recipients and not the priority of the providers.

True, in the case of medicine it makes a lot of sense that the devices to treat knife wounds should go to the area that needs such devices most first. However, I would argue that the best doctor(s) in the facility should handle the most difficult/critical operations along with the best tools available for the job. That's the understanding I have towards that... didn't mean to suggest that only the best doctors should be able to use the new tool, only that if they are available it should go to them during an operation

Except it's NOT their assets, the property belongs to the person who owns it, the only time that would ever be applicable as far as I'm concerned is if the business in question was found guilty in a court of stealing the business or assets, in that case a seizure and redistribution is justified - I really doubt your corporatists state would give the business to the workers though, they would sell it to someone else and the workers would be no better for it - They would simply use the money they had acquired to work towards whatever agenda they think will get them reelected.

I didn't mean it was... i meant that they would be stealing it from those that 'own' it. If the survival of a nation is depending on said nation stealing something or not... i should think it is in that nations best interest to steal it. That's the only time such an activity is remotely justifiable. When it comes to seizing and redistributing things obtained criminally: we are not talking about things that were legally owned by said person/corporation in the first place (ie: the pirated box of paper is the legal property of someone else despite the pirate 'owning' it as I understand it).