Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

As I said, the point of socialism is that people are placed in such conditions that they would not desire or need to do these deviant things.

So socialism will ensure that everyone will have everything they want?

I want a sailboat. Can I have one?

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

So socialism will ensure that everyone will have everything they want?

Yes. But what people want does not, for the most part, derive from within them, but from outside of them.

What people "want" in socialism would be quite different than what people want now.

It would be anticipated that consumption would drop.

I want a sailboat. Can I have one?

Yes.

gobsh!te

catbear wrote: »

Then why do we have anti-trust laws?

To protect the existing market leaders from competition.

Anti-trust laws....sounds good

Do you think the Patriot Act in the US was patriotic?

Who wrote the affordable care act?

I think you are being very naive.

The state enforces the monopoly. It does it in the form of laws and regulations that actually protect existing market leaders from competition. Many of the laws are written by lobbyists as in the case of the Affordable Care Act.

Another example is the Federal Reserve Act which enforces a banking cartel to take control of the US money supply.

The NK and Cuban leaders have capitalised on their positions. Fidel had promised free elections within a year after revolution but then capitalised on his monopoly of power.

What has this got to do with anything? He used the state to enforce himself as the only person with total control on power in Cuba.

The smaller the state, the better off we are............Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

gobsh!te

oscarBravo wrote: »

So socialism will ensure that everyone will have everything they want?

I want a sailboat. Can I have one?

People keep ignoring the point I make on public toilets v private toilets.

If you want to compare socialism v capitalism this is the best example.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

People keep ignoring the point I make on public toilets v private toilets.

If you want to compare socialism v capitalism this is the best example.

No, it's truly terrible analogy.

We've given up private toilets by popular agreement. This popular agreement was contingent on everyone agreeing that the cleanliness of the toilet was a communal responsibility and the community would agree to supply whatever resources were needed to keep the toilets clean. Everyone agreed that a clean as you go policy was best and the employment of toilet cleaners was also needed for a twice a day spruce up, including replacing the soap etc.. The people who most commonly share the toilet agree the scent of air freshener. Every member of the community is engaged in the maintenance of the toilets and believes passionately public toilets are a resource to be cherished.

Jimmy doesn't agree. He wants his own toilet. Jimmy has his own toilet. The rest of the community couldn't care less as long as he doesn't mess up the community toilets they work so hard to maintain.

A socialist toiletopia is born. All the toilet paper has aloe Vera

Brian?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So socialism will ensure that everyone will have everything they want?

People working together will. As long as you contribute.

I want a sailboat. Can I have one?

You can. Or you can share to communal sailboat. The communal one is unreal, we all chipped in for it. It's one of those carbon fibre catamarans that you see in the Americas Cup.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

No, it's truly terrible analogy.

We've given up private toilets by popular agreement. This popular agreement was contingent on everyone agreeing that the cleanliness of the toilet was a communal responsibility and the community would agree to supply whatever resources were needed to keep the toilets clean. Everyone agreed that a clean as you go policy was best and the employment of toilet cleaners was also needed for a twice a day spruce up, including replacing the soap etc.. The people who most commonly share the toilet agree the scent of air freshener. Every member of the community is engaged in the maintenance of the toilets and believes passionately public toilets are a resource to be cherished.

Jimmy doesn't agree. He wants his own toilet. Jimmy has his own toilet. The rest of the community couldn't care less as long as he doesn't mess up the community toilets they work so hard to maintain.

A socialist toiletopia is born. All the toilet paper has aloe Vera

Public toilets are generally filthy in comparison to a toilet owned by a family.

You're talking nonsense. Everyone has a toilet in their house....We have not "given up private toilets by popular agreement".

I am glad I don't share a toilet with you because eventually I'd go in after you and judging from your post you are full of you know what.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Gobsh!te banned for personal abuse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Soviet system was a top down approach, which is a poor model for engagement. Sense of ownership promotes greater engagement, a bottom up approach to building an equitable society.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can't, because it hasn't happened yet. Is this a reason not to be aspirational though?

I will entirely agree that "sense of ownership promotes greater engagement" -- but that's why people will work hard to maintain their own homes and gardens, while the public park down the street is covered in litter and graffiti. People simply are not as invested in communal ownership.

People are invested in communal ownership and reponsibility more than they used to be. It goes back to the social evolution I mentioned earlier. The ideal state is quite far away, but moving closer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Radiosonde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What was the poll question? Not regarding the NHS as a "proud achievement" may only mean they don't think it's a very good service, which says nothing about their general feelings about the principle behind the social provision of healthcare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Radiosonde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well I can't read the report right now, but disagreeing with that particular statement doesn't suggest anything about the respondent's attitude to collectivism, or indeed much about their attitude to the Welfare State, other than they don't regard it as one of Britain's proudest achievements.

It doesn't tell us if they think it's a good, bad, or neutral thing in their eyes, or what they do regard as Britain's proudest achievement. Were they asked about Britain's role in WW2? How about Britain's once immense Empire? Or the recent London Olympics? There are lots of "collectivist" possibilites that might prove more popular (indeed, the whole notion of a "proudest achievement" of a country is in itself collectivist).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Radiosonde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No I amn't. You ask people if they regard x as one of Britain's proudest achievements, and older people mostly say yes and younger people mostly say no - you have no more information there about the younger group's attitude to x other than that, unlike their elders, most don't regard it as that, and we can presume they have a less positive view of it. Because they don't like the idea? But it's a bad service? Because they take it for granted? Who knows.

I'm sure young British are probably mostly more individualistic than the pre war generation, but I don't think that question suggests very much of anything other than that their attitude to the Welfare State is somehow different from older people's.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

keane2097

If I was asked if I considered the welfare state one of Ireland's proudest achievements I probably would say 'no'. I still think it's a good thing though.

I'd guess a lot of people would have a similar reaction and I don't believe that particular poll tells us anything at all about whether people think welfare is positive or negative. It's a difficult claim to take seriously.

keane2097

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think it's more an issue with how you're choosing to interpret the answer than a problem with the question.

I don't think the construction of the question is amongst the National Centre for Social Research's proudest achievements, but it's not bad.

Radiosonde

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was speaking figuratively. You brought up the survey and pulled out that question in support of your arguments; why would I contact them?

lochderg

gobsh!te wrote: »

I used to believe in Socialism very strongly when I was young. I only saw good in it and only saw stupidity and greed in anything that was against "the greater good".

As I got older I read up on things and changed my mind completely. I can never go back to thinking like I had previously. For me, its similar to how I used to be a Catholic and how now I am an atheist.

I am intrigued to know if anyone has ever gone back to being a socialist and if so why?

" I read up on things"-which things?

lochderg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"patterns of inefficiency and waste...work ethic were eroded, the culture came to be defined by time-wasting, absenteeism, laziness, heavy drinking on the job, and disregard for the quality of goods being produced. "
-sounds like Wall St. to me

lochderg

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I am a 20 year old student, but used to like socialism.But realised how inefficient socialism can be.It isn't a great alternative.I used to think capitalism is wrong, but it's the best system of rewarding hard work and individual merit. Socialism often leads to freeloading and welfare abuse. I think we have too many socialists in opposition in this country with no cogent or rational policies. I feel very agrevated by people like Paul Murphy who life to surf off the the publics disapproval of the government in order to bolster his own popularity. He is a fraud, and a wolf in sheep's clothing,as are all other far left lunatics who thinks that socialism is the ultimate panacea to societal ills.

Have a look at Peter Joseph & the Zeitgeist Movement-they're on to something & refute all 'isms'
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
and here's a brilliant capitalism v zeitgeist debate (Stephan Molyneux/Libertarian arguing for Capitalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaP2GJvZlWY

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the 1950s the welfare state was shiny and new. A thing of wonder. Now it's common place. People of my generation and after, I'm 37, never experienced the hardship of subsistence living, life is too easy for us to appreciate the welfare state.

George Orwell wrote a wonderful book, "The Road to Wigan Pier" about the plight of the working class in Britain. To those people the welfare state must have been wonderful. Have a read of it, it's pretty short.

lochderg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

yet the right in America constantly defend gun ownership on the basis of a document written over 200 years ago

lochderg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps it's because recent ganerations have been spoon fed 'winner/loser' values by the right.The same way we have been reared on the dangers of terrorism or necessity of consumerism- it's nurture-surely you can see that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The 2nd amendment is far less relevant today than Marx's economic theories. The 2nd amendment was to allow citizen militias to be armed to protect against theory, how is that relevant today?