So to not derail the open carry thread with the discussion on socialism, I'll start another thread. My question to Sokolov and any body else who wishes to answer is; Do you agree with the socialistic maxim (I guess you can call it that) of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'? And that government should be the main arbitrator of that.
Socialism and even Communism are great in concept, but in practice do not accout for base human issues such as Greed. Everyone defines "Need" differently, from the priest with a vow of poverty to the affluent son of a CEO. This flaw is not restricted to these forms of government, in fact its fair to say the same about Capitalism. The difference in my opinion was best defined by Winston Churchill, "The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of misery." Personally I believe that one of the greatest issues facing modern America is that many people act like the Constitution says that "All people are equal" and forget that it really says "All people are CREATED equal". It is the government' responsibility to ensure that everyone is given an equal chance to succeed but not their job to make sure everyone is equal.
Would you then not support the government making education (nearly)? Would you not support a financial aid system for those who have nothing? Are born in a family that has nothing? Equal chances are an illusion. You're still incredibly dependent on where you are born. Sure individuals can rise up and overcome this, but most of those who are born with nothing have little chance to make much of their live, because they have nearly no opportunities. And I'll just add this disclaimer, because I'm sure someone who has gone through is will try and correct me. This isn't 1970 anymore. A house doesn't cost a few thousand bucks anymore. One man can't work a regular 9 to 5 and support his wife and kids through college and everything anymore. Times have changed. In general, you can't just start somewhere without a degree and climb your way up the ladder. Sure those chances still exist, but they're so much smaller. So no, I do not believe in equal opportunity. Especially not in America. People like Donald Trump can shout it as much as they want, there's no such thing. There's good opportunity if you're rich or middle class, anyone under that has equal opportunity if they're very lucky or smart. I'm not advocating giving everyone handouts, not at all. I'm saying make sure that the ones that are born in misery have a fighting chance. Because right now they don't. At all. And as a human being, I feel obliged to do so. I'll go ahead and quote the guy everyone here dislikes, because it captures my feelings on the subject perfectly "If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family. E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."" - Barack Obama
Not to derail too much but concerning the Obama quote BP posted: Dear President Obama: Then DON'T VOTE FOR THE DAMN PATRIOT ACT YOU *******! Alright, that's out of my system. You may continue discussing socialism.
Oh, also, and more on topic: At this point, you can't start WITH a degree and climb your way up the ladder. The economic issues, while of course political, are I think less to do with socialism/capitalism and much more to do with how money is handled by Central Banks (which are again Privately owned companies, at least in the US and the UK and such, not sure about Belgium). A large part of the reason for these higher costs is due to inflation, and wages not matching that due to how that inflation occurs, and, more importantly, how it gets processed into the economy, and how the Stock Market is manipulated (by governments and others). That doesn't mean that higher minimum wages are necessary the proper answer though, because owning a business doesn't mean you get to see the "advantages" of the increased money supply any sooner than your employees do, while dealing with increased costs not only to supplies but now also employees. To say nothing of other laws and regulations, such as mandatory Health Insurance policies (which some companies were exempt from... which is an example of the issue with government control of things like this that some people have). It's very complicated, and I don't have the specific details and proper mind-frame to go into it more.
@BurnPyro You are absolutely correct that true equal opportunity is unobtainable. The reality is that there always be some people with more than other. Some people will be born into wealthy families and others into an uneducated family in the middle of nowhere. What I was particularly talking about is the responsibiliy of government in creating an equal opportunity. For the sake of what I mean I will specifically talk about education. A child attending a federally funded school in inner city Detroit should recieve the same level of education as someone coming from a billionaire familly so long as they are also attending a federally funded school. The same goes for higher education. The current profit minded system is detrimental to a system of equality because only those that can afford it can get a college degree. Another good example would be people demanding a higher minimum wage. I completely agree that everyone that works should have a livable wage. The problem however is not minimum wage, but median wage. Unskilled, part time labor should not expect to make the same as trained workers with years of experience. It is the employers responsibility to fairly compensate their employees as they gain experience in a position. Instead of forcing the employers to pay EVERYONE more, they should be focusing on developing a way for employees to protect the,selves from being taken advantage of. The "15 dollar/hr" movement likes to bring up people that have worked at McDonalds for 10+ years but still make minimum wage. That is a prime example of someone being taken advantage of and that needs to be fixed. I primarily identify as a conservative but my life experiences cause me to sympathize with liberal beliefs or policies.
So we agree. How would you then go about the whole "equal opportunity" if it's unobtainable? Strive as best as possible, with or without government programs? How far do you go? I also agree that higher minimum wages are not the solution. Minimum wages are hugely important to compete with other countries. I, too, support the living wage. I'm not sure what living wage is in America, how the minimum wage currently holds vs the general living costs. I know in Belgium minimum wage is alright, but hardly shocking. I support programs that activate and help people seek jobs, education and opportunity in general. I do not support blind handouts and throw away money for the sake of pretending we are helping. Sure just throwing money is easier, but it's just that. Throwing money. (Oh my god, Burn with the right wing opinions!)
It's neither. It's a tool, and like most things in life - it really depends on the person(s) using said tool whether it is good or bad. I don't necessarily subscribe to all tenets within socialism, as I am sure most people don't agree with every line in the bible, or everything their political party says, etc. For me, the main appeals of socialist theories are: communal ownership of the means of production interestingly, this is how many Silicon Valley start ups function and recruit top talent, by giving them a portion of ownership a focus on the group, rather than the individual Based on the above, I also feel the only way socialism really works is within a representative type of government where individuals get to vote for candidates or policies (which is why saying socialism is a form of government using dictatorships as an example makes little sense) - because an economic system and political philosophy which is about the group must fundamentally come from the group. Now, I am not so naive to think that full-tilt socialism works with the current level of human development. As an economist by study and game designer by trade, I fully understand incentives and reward structures. But at the same time, I also don't believe that socialism is an all or nothing game. In reality, there is socialism everywhere to varying degrees. There are many cases where the free market has problems with Market Failure. These are areas where I feel government handles things more efficiently than a free market does - for example, I believe healthcare to be one of these areas - infrastructure is another. (Aside: Did you know the US subsidizes airlines to fly to certain areas? if it weren't for these subsidies, many parts of the US would not be reachable by air travel.)
I strongly believe that education should be the highest priority for reform in America. I speak as someone that has seen just about every angle of the educational system. I myself was home-schooled (I took classes at a private school 4 days out of the week so not the norm), my younger brother attended a nationally ranked high school in TN and my little sister went to high school in Detroit (Metro area so different than inner city but still considered part of the city). The difference in education (and funding) between the school in TN and MI was substantial. Both were public high schools but the surrounding area in TN was much wealthier. There are too many issues to identify any one as the core problem but to name a few, Teachers are not paid enough, and the standardized tests effecting funding mean that schools are spending too much time teaching for a test instead of educating the students. The greatest impact upon my view of how education should be handled was from visiting the Ron Clark Acadamy in inner city ATL (They had armed guards patrolling outside the school grounds because of where it is located). Its a private middle school with some of the best teachers in the world (Every teacher on staff has about a billion awards). They have children of senators and billionaires that attend and pay a MASSIVE tuition fee to do so. However the majority (Something like 70% of the students) are from the ghetto in the surrounding area and attend on full academic scholarships). Classes are taught to the smartest kids in the room instead of the dumbest and regardless of intelligence work through the same problems at the same time. When a student finishes their work they get up and begin helping the other students that have not finished. Class isnt done until every student has finished the work and doesn't have any questions. The 8th grade math class that I visited was working through first year college trigonometry. Every class room was decorated by the teacher however the teacher wanted. The math room that I mentioned earlier was Scooby-Doo themed and hidden behind a sliding book case that opened by pulling on certain books. There was another classroom that was superhero themed and had a life sized incredible hulk model. Obviously public schools cant afford the same kind of thing but the point is that the current system doesnt work. Personally if I was tasked with designing a new system I would get rid of the grade (9th-12th) system altogether. Subjects such as Math, Literature, Science, etc. would have their own grades (Lets say level 1-6). In order to graduate students would need to pass a certain grade in each core subject. Lets say 4. Students advanced in a specific subject would be able to test into higher grades and receive education in subjects they may not have otherwise learned until college. Students can progress at their own pace with people at their own level. Someone may be a 5 in Math but a 2 in Literature. My issue with higher education is largely with the for profit system that has been driving up the cost of getting a degree. The price of obtaining a degree has gone up astronomically and the value of the same degrees has decreased dramatically.
I notice not many answered the question. No I do not. But if people really are into socialism and think its fair then I would have some suggestions, I will start with 3 If you have a child and you cannot feed it cloth it etc you get charged with serious criminal charges, You disregarded the "society" by your greed and ignorance. If you looked out for the greater good you would not have had a child when you could not feed it etc. Cases of **** and things like that aside. Not having a kid is very easy, If you cant handle that you get fined/jail for negligence, perhaps spade or neutered. It encourages people to look after the greater good and holds people accountable. Just like you cant endanger peoples lives driving recklessly, you shouldn't be able to endanger people by Firking recklessly and you endanger that child's life for sure. It also helps protect environment from overcrowding and leaves more room for immigrants. Parents should be held accountable for their children's crimes for the entire span of child's life even when adult. It encourages people to look after the greater good and take care of immediate family and teach them correctly. If you get punished for the mistakes of a person you willingly chose to bring into this world it would teach you to take the child rearing more seriously and again that would be much better for the whole of society. If you don't want to take the risk, don't have the kid! very simple. Example person gets drunk and kills people, person and parents get prosecuted. Parents should have taught you better, since they brought you into this world they are responsible for you, If you don't want to be responsible for them then simply do not have them. This also helps keep overcrowding down, which saves the environment etc. If you make a homemade weapon and kill someone, you are responsible, If you make a human and they kill someone you are responsible. Just like you didn't have to make the weapon you didn't have to make the child. Members of government have to be housed in projects etc of the lowest quality that the government provides to poor, and they are not allowed any more money than the least of citizens is granted through the state, they also can never accept and gift of any sort from anyone and these rules apply for the rest of their lives. What this will do is make joining government of no incentive other than to do the right thing, You cannot ever gain more than the poorest person subsidized by government, thus encouraging you to look after the poor and you will never be able to be bought bribed promised gifts etc, it removes all possible greed by making it impossible. If you are in a government position and are found guilty of any crime you are punished by a magnitude of ten and instantly cast out of office etc. Since members of government have the most power they should be held to a higher standard, If you don't want that responsibility then don't join government. This is for the greater good so that it makes you more relatable to the poor and removes corruption thus helping society. Thoughts ? whos with me ? I may get into socialism more now that I think about it, I kinda like to make rules for others to live by.
As sok says, some things are better run by the state, and some by private enterprise. The social democratic model of northern Europe seems the best to me, and has proven itself able to marry a vibrant and competitive commercial sector with low inequality and a very high standard of life. My own country is being pushed further and further towards the American small government model by right wing ideologues and you can see the suffering and unhappiness it is causing accross the country.
I think a social welfare state is a great thing to have. Clearly, not everyone if equal, and some people make a lot more money than others -- and that is perfectly okay, as long as everyone is kept above a certain threshold. Living in a place where everyone has great healthcare by default makes me wonder why there is so much hate towards Obamacare.
Most of the hate towards obamacare that I have seen (I run a smallish business) is that the healthcare being offered isnt affordable and you essentially get fined for not having it. The concept is great and is something that should absolutely be a part of the US but the stranglehold that pharmaceuticals has on the market is pretty nuts.
It doesn't give great healthcare to everyone. It mandates that everyone buy Health Insurance while doing little to nothing to actually reduce healthcare costs (and since it's mandatory, most Insurance policies have taken the opportunity to hike up rates or have worse Principles [which make having the policy ineffective to begin with]). I'm not against Universal Healthcare, but "Obamacare" does not supply that. Aside from that, it's publicly acknowledged that the bill was grossly misrepresented to the public and the legislators themselves.* By Gruber? Or whatever that guy's name was. *(Very few Legislators actually read since it was so long [over 1000 pages IIRC] and so rushed through the process with constant huge amendments thrown on by the original authors. Which is of course less of a problem with the bill itself and more to do with people not doing their jobs properly. EDIT: Or, pending your view, the non-legislators doing their job too well.)
The rate at which healthcare premiums are rising does appear to be have slowed down overall (depending on who you ask). Whether this is due to Obamacare or not is hard to determine, of course. And it also depends on where you live. Obamacare, I think, was probably the closest thing to single payer healthcare that could be passed, and even in its current largely free-market form factor is still a problem for many people. I am pretty sure if Obama had tried to go full single payer universal healthcare we'd have had even a bigger backlash - I mean, they are calling him socialist NOW, what would they call him if he had pushed in something even more "socialist?" Personally, if he had done so, I would have been more impressed
That said, while I feel it is better than doing nothing, it really didn't go anywhere near far enough to actually effect the changes it wanted to in the marketplace. This is especially since so many parts of it got watered down by Congress and their efforts, along with many States' refusal to co-operate with the law. If you do some digging and research, you can see how various things has slowly undermined Obamacare to the point where I don't think it can work long-term. Refusals to expand Medicaid, to create state exchanges, or even assist the people in their states who try to sign up. Discouraging partnerships with private companies to inform the public and instead providing misinformation to the public. Blocking any attempts to improve/update the law based on actual experiences (i.e. if something is not working, why fix it? the more it breaks, the more likely the GOP can repeal it). Even the government itself has shut down over it. There are things like trying to "trade" a delay of the individual mandate for extending unemployment coverage. Various states have done things like create strict restrictions who can be certified to help people with signing up for healthcare, for example, Texas originally proposing a $50 registration fee and 40 hours of training in additional to the 20 hours from federal sources, etc. (it's always interesting when Republicans propose regulations to me, since they normally argue against them, saying it make things inefficient, but then have no problem imposing regulations on things they don't like, such as Planned Parenthood). The additional training is expected to cost each "Navigator" as they are called, an additional $400 each, groups with navigators (such as unions) would also be required to take out additional insurance for these people. Another example are the subsidies/loans given to new Co-ops so they could get up and running that were supposed to help make things more competitive (and therefore more affordable, in theory) had their funding cut (technically the White House did it, but it was due to pressure from Congress, and then the WH saying "ok, we won't use taxpayer money for this"). Thus many co-ops are now closing as the rule change completely screwed them over (basically, they were expecting X dollars and got X*.25 dollars instead, more or less). Basically, instead of trying to make the law work, much of the country has been actively trying to screw it up. Even if the original plan was amazing (and to be clear, it isn't very good IMO), such opposition and, dare I say, sabotage is ALWAYS going to cause problems.
