Brewsters MillionsFollow

As has been said, ask 10 people in your office. They'll look it up and get the right answer, which is Allegory's point.

If you need to know where a candidate stands on the issues and how his/her voting record actually stacks up, you can find that.

Busy at work, so I'm lagging a bit:



Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it



Some of us do remember. If you don't, or no one you discuss politics with does, perhaps that's a flaw on your end? Just a thought...



Many of us do consider it a bad word. We tend to think that when you take money from one group of people to provide services for another, you may improve some statistical quality of life (maybe), but the cost is a reduction of freedom for both groups. One because the fruits of their labor is being taken from them, and the other because they are entering into a condition of dependence on the government for their livelihood.

We can debate this at end, but can we please not just dismiss the issues some of us have with this sort of thing out of hand? To me, this is important. You may disagree, but you really ought to recognize that there's a disagreement and respect that we have legitimate reasons for our position.


And yeah. There's nothing "new" about Obama's platform. Just in case you forgot what this was about...

It's freedom. How free are you if your government can take anything you have? Think about it. There's a reason why "property" is almost always lumped in as one of the necessary rights that a free society must provide it's citizens.



Nice euphemism. Were they not part of society before? In what way does having free medical care make you a part of society where not having it doesn't? Methinks you've been sold a nice story somewhere along the line...



The state of being poor has nothing to do with whether you are free. IMO, that's one of the core mistakes with socialism. It attempts to relate freedom to having money. It's not having money that makes you free. It's having the right not to have what you have taken away that does. If you stop and think for just a second, you'd realize that if you equate not being poor with being free, and justify taking money from others to make you not poor, then at the same time you've removed any guarantee that what one has can't be taken away, effectively eliminating the very freedom you think you're granting.

What you've been given can be taken away just as easily right? Once you establish that taking money from people isn't an infringement on freedom, then no amount of giving it to someone else can equate to giving them freedom, can it?

Hence why I say that both groups lose liberty in the process. When you take money from someone you infringe on their liberty. When you give money to someone (or a good or service) you *don't* give them any liberty at all. That's the big flaw with socialism. You guys think that the scales balance out, but they actually don't because the very process of socialism is self defeating.



Yes. But it doesn't guarantee outcomes. Do you see how once a result is guaranteed you've lost freedom, not gained it?



Only because you've incorrectly associated freedom with having things. It's not about having them. It's about the freedom to obtain them for yourself. Take that away either by taking the things away or guaranteeing that the things are provided and you've lost that freedom.


You've bought into a definition of freedom that was constructed specifically to make people think socialism is a good idea. That's not going to convince me of anything.

Let me give you a quick pop quiz: What's the difference between "can" and "may". Understand that difference and you'll understand the difference between real freedom and the fake freedom that socialism offers.

It's money. We can play this game all night long, but what is being taxed is your money. You can choose to imply that a loss of money amounts to a loss of freedom, but demonstrate it. Until then, the thing the government takes from you is called "money".



They can't. What they can do is make laws that are approved by democratically elected representatives, which state the amount of money subtracted from your income. If that amount was 100%, no government would ever get elected.



Because if you physically weak, mentally tired, maybe unstable, have bad teeth, and a constant nasty cough, it makes it a lot harder to find a job. Or a partner. Or friends. In a a word, it makes it harder to "integrate" society.



Of course it has. Freedom implies choices. When surviving is the only option, it severely limits your choices.



No, it's about having choices. Once again, if a society can afford to make all its citizen moderately healthy, and with relatively equal chances in life, they are creating a more free society. When you have a socio-economic group that has close to 0 prospects to making their lives better because the odds are so stacked against them, they are not "free".

Untouchables in India aren't free. And yet, nothing can be taken away from them.

The "right not to have what you have taken away from you" is defined as "property". That's what that word is for, that's why the concept exists.



Complete non-sense. If you live in any kind of society, you contribute. It's not that complicated. How much you contribute is, once again, decided by democratic means.

Think about the implications.



No result is "guaranteed". What it does is to create equal opportunities for people. Or as close as possible.

Look, you don't choose what family you're born into. You can't punish people for being born in the circumstances they were born in. What you can do, though, is make sure society provides the means for them to better themselves. It doesn't mean they will. They might well end up as crack addicts. Who knows? But at least they had a chance.



Is it? Is that really how you define freedom? Cos this implies that someone born in a rich family has never been free. He's never had to obtain these "things", food, shelter, medical insurance, for himself. He'll never have to. He'll forever be a slave under your mind-numbingly stupid definition of freedom.

Money is a placeholder for property. Are you arguing that there's no loss of freedom if the government takes your property away? It's not a total loss, but it is an infringement. How can it not be?



Lol. Which is why I'm arguing that people voting in a democratic election *not* give their government the power to take more of what we have away from them.

What part of that is confusing to you? Arguing that it'll only happen if the people vote to let it happen only works if you don't vote for the people who'll take that money from you.

If the only thing between us and that 100% level you talk about is the voters, then the voters really ought to pay attention to that issue shouldn't they?



I happen to think that's a really poor argument all the way around. What if a member of society choose to have bad teeth, a constant nasty cough, refuses to take a bath, doesn't have friends, etc. Does he cease to be a member of the society? Is that really an objective? To force everyone to comply with some social norm?

I thought you were arguing for freedom and liberty?



You're missing the point. Poverty does not limit your choices, it only limits your ability to implement those choices. Those are two radically different things. The right to do something is not the same as the ability to do something.

That's a distinction that is blurred by socialism and an assumption I don't agree with at all. Those are different things, but socialism attempts to make them seem identical. It's a false assumption that leads to false conclusions.



Granted. But it's also about being able to enjoy the fruits of those choices. So, I should reap rewards if I make good choices. If the government can take the fruits of my labor away from me for no reason other that that other's choices didn't work out as well as mine, that is *not* freedom.

Having choices is irrelevant if those choices don't mean anything. If all choices cause the same result, then am I really free? I don't think so.



No. They aren't. You're once again equating *having* things with having the freedom to have them. Those are two different things. If I take away something you have naturally, then I'm infringing on your freedom. But giving you the same thing doesn't give you any freedom.

You are progressing from an unproven assumption. How about you explain how giving people those things creates a more free society?




Which socio-economic group though? No one has "0 prospects" or even close to that. Not in the US.

I'll also argue that by providing free stuff to that group you actually reduce their prospects, not increase them. You are once again equating having something with having the freedom to have them. Does giving someone stuff give them "prospects"? I thought prospects were about opportunity, not result. By giving people free stuff, you reduce their need to work to obtain them themselves, and therefore decrease the likelihood that they'll actually be able to obtain them themselves (their "prospects"). You decrease their chance of success as a result of trying to help them.



There's a difference between removing artificial obstacles from success and providing guarantees of success. The former increases liberty. The later decreases it. Freedom is *not* about whether you succeed or not, or whether you have things or not. It's about not being prevented from doing those things on your own. Being poor doesn't prevent you from succeeding. It just makes it a bit more difficult. It can be overcome.



No clue what you're trying to say here. Property is the thing you have. The right not to have it taken away is a component of freedom.



You've failed to understand. My point is that socialism equates having "things" with freedom. So, having medical care, a roof over your head, good teeth, clean clothes, all increase your freedom. You argued this very point earlier when you said that without them you can't function as an integrated member of society. So having those things gives you "freedom" in the socialist world. Not having them means you don't have as much freedom. Another way to look at it is that you are measuring the quantity of freedom someone has by measuring the quantity of "things" they have. So a rich person has a lot of freedom and a poor person has very little freedom.

Following me so far?

Now. If you've equated the quantity of "things" with the quantity of "freedom" one has, then the very act of establishing a practice of taking "things" from the citizens as a means of obtaining some balance means that those things aren't protected. You don't have a right to those freedoms/things, you are granted them from the government but only to the degree that the government (society voting in the case of a democracy) allows you to have them.

The point being that your freedom under this model is completely controlled by the government. It controls how much you have completely. It can take it away if you have too much, and give it to you if you have too little. My argument here is that even under the socialist definition of freedom, the citizens don't actually have it. They are just borrowing it if you will. They get to use it, but only to the extent that the government allows them.


First off, I think it's a bogus equivalence to make, but it's not even consistent within the socialist model. If your government has complete control over who has what "stuff", and you've equated the quantity of stuff with the quantity of freedom, then the government controls your freedom level at any given time. I can't see how any sane person can think that creates a "free society". It creates a very very controlled society that might think it's free, but only because they don't really think about it too much.



When you provide free services you are guaranteeing the outcome. You're guaranteeing that everyone has medical care, or housing, or good teeth, or whatever you've decided everyone must have before they can be considered a full member of society.

The objective of socialism really isn't to provide them with those things so that they can succeed at other things. You can't possibly believe that. The objective is simply to provide those things. Period. The belief is that the people will be happy with those things and will continue to support the political structure that grants them those things. That's it. It's ultimately about population control in a democracy. People will vote for their benefits.

Or are you going to try to argue that those who receive said benefits actually do have "equal opportunities" at making their lives better on their own going forward. Care to look at the statistical success rates of groups of people who are historical recipients of the blessings of socialism? You are much much more likely to succeed in life if you are born poor in a society that does not provide socialistic benefits to the poor than you are in one that does.



You're assuming that it's the government's responsibility to make sure that people succeed. It's not. It's the people's responsibility. The government should simply get out of the way. It's not "punishing" anyone by allowing them to live their own lives.



No. It should just get out of the way. Remove obstacles? Sure. But there's a difference between not getting between someone and a table of food and running over and getting it for them. One gives the person who wants food the freedom to get their own. The other may give him food, but nothing more. That's not freedom.

[quote]Only because you've incorrectly associated freedom with having things. It's not about having them. It's about the freedom to obtain them for yourself.

Is it? Is that really how you define freedom? Cos this implies that someone born in a rich family has never been free. He's never had to obtain these "things", food, shelter, medical insurance, for himself. He'll never have to. He'll forever be a slave under your mind-numbingly stupid definition of freedom.
[/quote]

Er? No. He's got the same freedom to obtain things as anyone else. You're stuck on the assumption that freedom is limited to just the necessities. It's not freedom if it's limited. It's one of the reasons why you don't see taking money from the rich as an imposition on their freedom. I suppose you don't see anything above subsistence as necessary to have "freedom".

I think that limits freedom. Doubly so in a system where the government is the one making this decision. So everyone gets subsistence but nothing else? Weren't you trying to claim that the whole point of this was so that people would have "equal opportunities" for success? Ok. I'll ask the question: What success? The very thought process you're using to get there removes that success from the equation. It's not necessary, so it can be taken away, right?

Do you see why I keep saying that socialism is inherently flawed and contradictory? The very process of taking from the rich to give to the poor, in some attempt to give them equal opportunity ends up making that opportunity meaningless. There's nothing left above that point. You've already decided that any wealth beyond that necessary for "integration into society" isn't important and can be taken away without consequence. So what's the purpose of having equal opportunity?


It's a lie. As I said earlier. The objective isn't to provide equal opportunity, or level the playing field, or whatever clever analogy you want to use. The equalizing of wealth and condition *is* the end goal of socialism. And it does so by removing the differences of result, not opportunity. It does this by guaranteeing a level of existence for everyone and in the process removing the opportunity for everyone. Over time, it'll balance at a point at which everyone has exactly the same "stuff". At that point, everyone will be "equal" and everyone will have the same amount of liberty. Of course, that value will actually be zero, but most of the people living in that society will have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the system that they wont know what they've lost. They'll have completely adopted the idea that desiring wealth or wanting more is "bad". Of course those are the whole point of having more opportunity, which was the lie that started the whole process, right?


Socialism *is* bad. It's a trap. It's ultimately about population control. The arguments about equal opportunity are lies. If you stop and think, you'll realize that the process of socialism cannot every grant equal opportunity. It can only grant equal results at the cost of opportunity.

Edited, Sep 11th 2008 5:51pm by gbaji

You're correct. 100% freedom is a philosophical concept. However, examining it is valuable because it can tell us what things cost us freedom and what things grant us freedom. When you do that, you'll find that when there's some authority limiting your actions, that's a reduction of freedom. That's really about it. The degree to which an authority can force you to do something or prevent you from doing something you want to do is the degree to which you are not-free.

The corresponding argument is that the less those things happen, the more free you are.


The key point to start with as well is that freedom is not something that is given to you. It's something that may be taken away. The theoretical model shows us that if there was no authority anywhere that could tell us what to do we'd be perfectly free. Of course that's pretty much impossible in the real world, but it's a good starting point. Governments don't give us freedom, they take freedom away. However, a government can also protect freedoms. That's, in fact, the sole point to having them (or voluntarily agreeing to let them rule you). The assumption is that you allow your government to infringe on your freedoms to the absolute minimum under the promise that it will protect all the remaining freedoms. Since in the real world, you'll always be subject to the potential of an authority telling you what to do, this is a necessary compromise.


Let me be *really* clear here. If someone argued that the infringement on my freedom imposed by taking some of my money away is ok because of the good done by providing free health care and housing and whatnot to those who can't afford it, I might not agree, but at least I would respect their arguments. The problem is that socialist theory attempts to end-run around this comparison by labeling the act of providing those services (free health care, housing, etc) as somehow giving freedom to those who receive it. That's a complete and utterly false statement, but is the core of the socialist ideology.

That false assumption is perpetrated specifically to make it easier to convince people to go along with it. If you had people balance the cost to themselves and their liberty in the form of taxes against the societal good of the various programs the socialists want to impose, most people would accept a small amount, but nowhere near what the socialists want. But if you can convince them that you're not just giving up some of your property and liberty for some temporary goods for the poor, but are actually giving them freedom!, well... some will be more likely to buy it.

Socialism attempts to make it appear as though the act of wealth redistribution is liberty neutral. You're taking some and giving some, so the scales balance out. And those who've adopted its tenants steadfastly believe this is true. But once you understand the very simple fact that governments can never give freedom but can only take it away, you'll know this is false. The best a government can do is limit the amount of freedom they take from us. No act of government can *ever* give us freedom.

Thus, the scales of socialism don't balance. It's a lie.

Edited, Sep 11th 2008 7:33pm by gbaji

That...was actually mostly coherent. Not bad.

Edit: for clarification!

Edited, Sep 11th 2008 9:50pm by zepoodle

I've got a plane to catch in an hour, and I haven't packed so I can't answer any of the other topics either, and I won't have internet access for 4 days, so those topics will probably die, but two quick things:



I do. That's the core the belief. That's what happens everyday in lots of European countries. In Norway, for example, mothers get 8 months parental leave paid at the same income they had while working, and those 8 months are shareable between the dad and the mum. So the mum can stay home looking after the baby for 4 months, then go back to work while the dad stays at home to look after him for another 4 months. To me, that's exactly what it is about. You're free to spend time with your kid. Or go back to work. Or have the dad do it. That gives you "freedom". Having a kid and then being forced back into work after 3 weeks because you can't the bills other wise isn't being "free".



Only if people vote for it. It's a freaking democracy. It would be exactly the same in a society where taxes didn't exist. As long as you have an elected government, that can do whatever they were voted into office to do, within the limits of the constitution.

People get rich in "socialist" countries. There are income differences. They are just not as big as in other, purely capitalist, countries. The aim of state help isn't to make everyone of the same wealth, the aim is to create equality of opportunities, or at least as close to. Because it's a freaking democracy. That's why people vote for it. As for the government, its aim is to survive the next election, period.

There is no conspiracy. No lies. No grand scheme of things. Not even a real ideology anymore. People have just realised that they're themselves more likely to be happy if everyone else is educated, relatively well-off, and relatively healthy. They can see that it's better to be randomly born in Norway than in Saudi Arabia.


Edited, Sep 12th 2008 9:32am by RedPhoenixxx

Which is it? It was a sarcastic rebuttal to your idiotic comments where you believe you can dictate what I'm actually thinking.

The government is simply vastly more efficient at delivering certain things: water, power, electricity, health care. Take health care. The US pays 2-3 times more then government run systems with, arguably, worse care as a result. This excess represents a huge fraction of the total cost of things made by US companies which pay for health care for their employees, such as the auto industry, and limits their competitiveness versus foreign companies.

That doesn't mean the government has to do these things. It just might be a good idea if it did.

The "freedom" to have no health care is an insane concept.

Equating "freedom" to paying no taxes which go to help other people is totally impracticable. Of course they are. It is just a question of degree.

It's not, really. Candidates worry about voters, not non-voters. Sure, they'd like to have you voting for them but, so long as you're not voting against them, you really don't matter. You won't vote for or against me no matter what my stance on puppy abortion is? Then I don't really care what you think about it.

Removing yourself from the process just makes yourself irrelevent.

No, it fails because it's inefficient, unequitable and unjust for a private company to both produce and provide some services. It has nothing to do with earnings.


WHO's healthcare ranking
I know at least the top two have nationalized health care systems.

It's pretty common knowledge that that in the US we pay top dollar for rather mediocre health care.




Edited, Sep 12th 2008 6:03pm by Elinda

Edited, Sep 12th 2008 6:05pm by Elinda