The simplest would be how state propositions are handled now. It's put on the ballot, people vote, it passes or not. Honestly, whether or not the ballot measure is a socialist policy or not doesn't make a huge difference here. But it really isn't about voting or how it'd work - there are many ways of doing that kind of thing, my point is largely that I don't think dictatorships that enforce socialist policies are what I called socialist because it's just dictatorship by another name. True socialism is by the people.
First let me give you the definition of socialism given me in school, "Government ownership or control of all means of production or distribution." Basically either government ownership or control fits the definition. With government in so much control of health care insurance under Obamacare, it fits the definition. Before you can even discuss the merit of the issue you first have to determine whether the government in question actually has jurisdiction on the matter. The feds don't have jurisdiction on many things it legislates in. Those are illegal usurpations. Obamacare is only one example of not only bad policy IMHO, but is also unconstitutional due to lack of jurisdiction. States may have jurisdiction depending on their constitutions. I'm not familiar with them all. Even so, I'm not cool with socialism at state level, but a well crafted, soundly implemented policy is worth considering provided the state (or lower level of government) has jurisdiction. Do I oppose taxes in general? No. I recognize governments need to have a source of income. What I oppose is excessive taxation or taxing for policies that are not constitutional. In the example of Obamacare, if the feds don't have the authority to require me to buy insurance, then it can't have the power to tax me for it or in lieu of that. Congress has the authority to tax, but not for that purpose. (Having said thatI don't have a problem with the feds offering health care insurance to their employees for it has the same rights of an employer as any other employer.) I brought up states for another reason. People like to point to the European countries as successful (debatable) implementations of socialistic policies as if that's a reason to have those at the federal level here in the US. NO it's not! It's a reason to have these policies considered at the state level due to size and scope. Russia is the only country in Europe that is comparable to the US. Germany, France, England and Ukraine are large nations, but are still closer to the larger US states like CA or TX than to the US as a whole.
I completely disagree. It certainly isn't ownership. As for control, I don't think Obamacare actually controls very much and is more regulatory in nature.
Yea, I guess what I can't get my head around is why the Constitution (and your interpretation of it) seems to trump everything else. It's like it doesn't matter what I ask or what I say, that's the only thing you come back to. You have a problem with government dictating things, especially if you consider it unconstitutional, but have no problem with the Constitution dictating things and don't seem to want to question the Constitution in any way. This seems to be a weird approach, to start with the a priori assumption that whatever the Constitution says is the only correct way of doing things. I do understand the Constitution is very important for many Americans, but it, like ANY OTHER POLICY (socialist or otherwise) is still just something man-made.
I don't really buy this argument. No country is exactly like another. No human is exactly like another. No student is exactly like another. The fact that "things are different" is no reason not to try and learn from other examples. So instead of copping out with "the US isn't the same" try and figure out what the differences are and how that affects the policy and make an argument of that nature. For example, "public transportation is ineffective in the US due to lower population density" is a much better argument than "public transportation doesn't work because it is socialism and the us isn't germany."
Progressives are aiming for socialism, or worse. 100s of thousands of pages of new laws is epic in its' scope. The power of Obamacare is tremendous! And it is just one example of the war progressives are waging against liberty in MuriKa. Their can only be one victor. The wheel of time still turns. Never give up hope, ever.
While I can't say that Stormchasee's interpretations are necessarily valid, when it comes to the Federal Government, the Constitution DOES trump everything else. The Constitution is the detailing of how the Federal Government functions, including it's jurisdictions and limitations (as well as the methods to change those, and to check any laws against it with a supposedly proper proceeding that is more valid than any individual person's interpretation or opinion). There's nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution, or working to change it. But it should be done through the proper procedures, and prior to the creation of laws or action of policies which are not in keeping with the limitations imposed on that government. The Constitution is intended to be the People's/States dictates on what the Government is to do and be capable of doing. Essentially, it is meant to be the authorization of power from the Bottom (the people) up. Which is why it requires so many people/States to ratify a change to it. It's meant to require a certain amount of widespread support to ensure the Government doesn't change it without the consent of a large majority and consent of those who are being governed (while many laws passing in legislation only require a simple majority, pending amendments to those laws and such, and of course Constitutional authority). Again, there's nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution. In particular to whether it still represents the will of the nation. But there's also a proper procedure for changing that which is commonly being ignored (in my view at least). Though that all doesn't mean that some socialist policies couldn't work in the US or anything.
I see very little of that though. Mostly I just see blind faith that the Constitution = King. This is probably because I am not American
If Obamacare is, for example, not Constitutional, as well as many other things. Why are they allowed to exist? Why has the Justice branch of the government not struck down these laws? And if not the Supreme Court, whose job is it to determine the Constitutionality of the laws?
Anyway, I understand the Constitution is important to Americans. I just don't find the arguments of "it's not constitutional" very interesting or informative from a discussion point of view. Mostly because it doesn't discuss the actual policies/issues, and often seems to be just a statement, rather than an explanation. Most of the time it reads like "it's not Constitutional so it doesn't matter what we are talking about."
Probably. In my view, most likely corruption, or them pursuing their own political agendas regardless of the law itself. Also, they get a lot of cases, so it both takes time and a lot of proceedure to actually be able to reach that point for any individual case. Essentially the States, nullifying a law. For example, Marijuana has been legalized in many US states in spite of the (continued) Federal ban on the substance. Part of that is the Feds not pushing their luck and trying to enforce in those regions too much, but the other part is States just telling them "no." Of course, this does not effect the country as a whole barring all states refuting it. Another option is repealing it, though that's not a Constitutional check so much as legislators changing their minds (or the People changing their legislators). Very understandable. Think of it as debating whether or not a specific law/policy/whatever should be within the jurisdiction of that government. Whether it should be untouched, or if it should be handled by a different governmental body. This isn't directly related to the merits of a specific policy/issue, and obviously it's opinion based, but it is an important factor. In a sense, it's a different angle to the issue I brought up, which is how to ensure proper accountability without harming innocent people in the process (or limiting that harm as much as possible). One way to do so is to make it so that the larger/more powerful body of government doesn't have direct control/influence over thing in the first place. That's not to say this is the only/best way necessarily of course.
For example, this thread's title is "Is Socialism Good or bad?" And the OP makes no mention of the US. But every time he posts, it's about the Constitution. It's like... but isn't this thread about the merits of Socialism? I mean, great, you don't think Obamcare is constitutional, and that the US Government does a bunch of stuff you think is not Constitutional. What does that have to do with whether Socialism is good or bad? Is the US Constitutionality of specific US policies the determinant of "good" and "bad" now as it relates to Socialism? If so, why? He even said he might be ok with certain policies on the state level. Thus, to me, it kind of says to me that we aren't talking about the merits of the policies and ONLY their Constitutionality as it relates to one country.
First its good to see the rhetoric of "constitution=King" which no one said and is hyperbole. Yes it is absolutely because you are not American. No idea how law works where you came from, but some of us here are into knowing and following the law. From Wikipedia below since I know you count them as valid source. "In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary Statutory law (see Uncodified constitution below); in such states when an official act is unconstitutional, i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the constitution, that act is null and void, and the nullification is ab initio, that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It was never "law", even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision" That's what makes it "King" in your words, Its the foundation of law which all the others are based on, that's why its a big deal. So yea the highest law in the land is kind of king in legal sense. Constitution = Highest law No one in this thread that I have seen has promoted blind faith in constitution at all, (Copy and paste it here please- I bet you wont) so again that's hyperbole and shows how your vision is tainted and you aren't really interested in discussion but just pushing your agenda. Also the constitution has changed many times, AKA its not followed blindly. Some see how changing the foundation of laws have an effect on the rest so we treat it as important, In other countries it may not be a big deal, and respecting law may not be a big deal, which is why I am glad there are different countries that people can live in. But as always I find the hyperbole fun and entertaining! so thank you. I see a couple people who don't really understand what they are talking about just acting like they do to push their agenda.
For awhile, I was enjoying you taking one line out of context and spinning an entire unrelated weave out of it. But now I am just going to start ignoring you. My "agenda" here is to discuss the topic at hand, but you seem to have an agenda of twisting people's words and replying to snippets while ignoring the larger context of the discussion. For example, I am talking about this discussion and within the context of this discussion it seems like there's little questioning of the Constitution. Whether the US as a country has changed the Constitution in its lifetime is immaterial to that.
That having been stated... Provided the proper constitutional amendments, carried and ratified by the will of the people and the States, would Socialist policies be inherently good or bad in the US? I've got a feel of your opinion, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: In your view, Socialism inherently causes greater infringement of the People's inherent Rights regardless of the form of Government it manifests within. In large part, this has to do with Taxes. Paraphrasing a bit but "The power to Tax is the power to Destroy." Daniel Webster and Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) The direct quote of Webster: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” Source and further details: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1798.html It also, inherently, has to do with Property Rights. But mostly the issue is with individual choice and liberty. For you, collective or government ownership and apportioning of property, funds, and taxes removes individual liberty with regards to whichever the policy covers. For example, under a Socialist medical system, one might not be able to choose their own doctor, or to choose which medicines among a larger variety of options would be best for themselves. This because the collective operating agency says: "no, this is good enough, we can't be wasteful with all these other people's money after all." Because not only production but also distribution is controlled. Pending the specific policy, it also interferes with one's ability to run a business that is even only tangentially related. ------------------------------------------------------ Here are some of my thoughts on it: Mirriam-Webster has three definitions for "Socialism": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism 1. Theories/Policies affecting that Government/The People As A Whole owns production and distribution. 2. The actual Systems which effect those theories/policies. 3. Marxism stuff. Let's toss out the third one, as it is based on an individuals theories about how to transition to his fully realized "ideals." So what we have here are really two different things still. Not the two different definitions, but rather the variance we see inherent in the basic definition. "Owned and Controlled By the State" "Owned and Controlled Collectively" This, I think, is an important distinction. Collective ownership of something is not a new thing. Many married couples for example will share ownership of certain items and property (which makes divorces a PITA but that's another issue). For example, Sokolov and Boozha would likely argue that "Owned and Controlled By the State" is not trully Socialism (at least not without actual popular support). But rather that a true Socialist country would simply be using government as one of many potential tools to enact actual Socialism. Owned and Controlled by the State has, historically, resulted in things like **** Germany, China, Russia, and other "uncomfortable" nations. China even goes so far as to control production (and less strictly distribution) of it's own citizens via reproductive limitations and such. This to me is an inherent abridgement of Human Rights. I, after all, believe in a Woman's Right to Choose whether or not to have children (and regardless of marital status, but of course precluding consent of the sperm "donor"), and that this is not something to do with the US Constitution or even the UN Human Rights decrees, but rather believe it inherent. Not everyone of course agrees with my stance on this. Even if this was a "collective" where the woman in question had more say than these Governments, having those other people dictate to her in this fashion would not be cool with me. Even in the face of arguments such as local overpopulation, my stance is firm on this: Socialist control over human reproduction is very much "inherently bad." And, logically, I would consider any socialist control over any other human right.* Does that also apply to other things? What about, for example. Food. Collective ownership and distribution of Food could, barring corruption and other problems (not enough production/imports for example), ensure that that collective or that nations citizens would never go hungry. On the other hand, used improperly it could ensure everyone is malnourished or even starved. Or even be used as a tool to murder parts of that collective by claiming others need the food more (for the "good of the collective/government" of course). However, this isn't something that is "inherent" to the methodology. It's not good or bad in this case, it has potential for being greatly beneficial or greatly destructive. It's merely one option for a "system." I personally feel like this is the case for many cases of Socialism as applied to specific areas of production and distribution. As such, my main concerns are which systems are more susceptible to corruption (that is, which can be abused most easily), as well as what systems can adequately remove and/or recompense those harmed by such incidents of abuse. I quite frankly don't have an answer on that front, at least not yet. Historically however Socialism hasn't been that good, but it's also true that I've mostly only heard of negative examples to begin with. *(The question, of course, naturally flows: "What are people's inherent human rights? Do people even HAVE inherent human rights?" Etc. Which is a much larger and more complex discussion, and largely comes down to belief or faith rather than observable metrics.)
So, for me, the difference is collective vs individual choice. I know that for many here "individual choice" = "freedom" and it is a compelling argument. In the case of reproduction, it is already typically not an individual choice, but a family one - at least the prospective parents, sometimes with others as well. In that sense, it's "socialist" with the family context. The family decides, as a whole, whether it s a good idea to have children now. We are, of course, talking about PLANNED parenthood (not the organization, but the idea of family planning) and certainly it happens by accident sometimes. It isn't a stretch, to me then, if a community might decide whether it is a good idea to have children now (and in some parts of the world, it's true that childrearing is seen more of as a communal effort). The big question is whether broad spectrum socialist philosophy can work on a LARGE scale, implemented by a central government. That, historically, has certainly been problematic (though as stated I question whether such states are truly socialist). But individual policies that are socialist leaning seems to have been successful (or at least not terrible like the aforementioned) in many parts of the world, including the US.
The difference here is consensus, as far as choosing to go for impregnation and/or the actual raising of the child. Though one can argue that even then all the power after impregnation (obviously the man has a say in it up to this point) is typically reserved for the woman (legally speaking at least); she still ultimately chooses whether or not to abort, and a man will typically pay child support even against his own will and even if he leaves that "collective", though this is possibly more US specific. In the broader sense of things: Obviously, if, for example, in a larger collective, the woman being "dictated" to agreed with the collective it would still be her choice. The issue comes when a larger majority forces that choice without a full consensus or the will of the individual effected (of course, law in general is this, but we're talking in relation to human rights and reproduction specifically).
"Provided the proper constitutional amendments, carried and ratified by the will of the people and the States, would Socialist policies be inherently good or bad in the US?" Inherently bad, It makes the people more dependent on state, which gives the states more control over them and them less responsible for themselves. Example, someone is getting some sort of money from the government, I assume you and I would both agree that person is very unlikely to vote or do anything that causes that to go away. Once in place any one of those type of things is very hard to get rid of because of that same reason." Hey we are going broke we need to cut something" "you aint touching my money". What happens is the people in government then become a minority that control the majorities said portion of money., They have "access" to the funds and often can use much of it in the "dark" and no one knows what they are doing. Which leads to corruption etc. Examples would be like in Detroit where the mayor awarded contracts to friends companies and they ended up later finding it was a scam, which of course happened multiple multiple times, and that is still better to happen at state level rather than federal since amount of money is smaller and so on. I also assume we would agree how there can be "conflict of interest" when a something like AG is voted in and their good buddy gets in trouble, but AG is still in "charge". I often see how people say they disagree with the political elite, then they vote or want things that by their very nature give those political elite more power and control.(not you just general sense) I would agree with some thoughts you posted about taxes in general, But do see the need, roads, military, etc. particulary at state level, I am more for state taxes than federal for a few reasons, States should be different to try and do different things so people can have choices, although still the smaller amount of control the better. One state gets crazy with taxes, people leave and go to a state with lower, sorta competition. If a state gets too crazy with whatever you can leave and go to another. At federal level it is much bigger, in control of much more money and you cannot escape it(In same country). Also states don't all have one point of failure that way, meaning it is better to have one state go bankrupt rather than have the whole country go bankrupt etc, same with education and so on. Less laws = more free, less ability to abuse More laws = less free, more ability to abuse "For you, collective or government ownership and apportioning of property, funds, and taxes removes individual liberty with regards to whichever the policy covers. For example, under a Socialist medical system, one might not be able to choose their own doctor, or to choose which medicines among a larger variety of options would be best for themselves. This because the collective operating agency says: "no, this is good enough, we can't be wasteful with all these other people's money after all." Because not only production but also distribution is controlled." ^agreed on that, specially underlined. I will touch on other thoughts in your post in a next response.
