Aspiration Versus Individualization----Two Competing Views On Our Nation's Future
Our national divide has evolved over the past twenty five to thirty years. The fissures that separate us are expanding and deepening. It is almost as if we are two nations battling over the land we share and which we are all interdependent upon. We battle over policy; we demean one another on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity; we even place "derogatory: labels on each other.
In the eyes of those who differ from me, I could be called a socialist, a Jew, a Communist sympathizer, a "liberal nut job", a naïve fool who never gave up his 60s idealism, or an inflexible ideologue. Those on the other side are often called Fascists, Nazis, bigots, right wing nuts, greedy individualists, or stubborn cavemen.
In the spirit of truth, all of the invectives have a measure of truth, and they all have at least an equal measure of lies. The debate is not what we want {for most of us, our hoped for outcomes are remarkably similar} or whether we love our nation. It is a debate over the break in the road and how we get to the re-merging of the fork. What is it that we really disagree with?
How do we see each other? What do we believe? What are our hopes and dreams for this nation? I can only write with certainty about my views. I believe strongly that my views match up well with those who are left of center. The list that I'm going to expound is a liberal one. I invite my conservative or rightist colleagues to talk about how their road to the end of the line differs from mine. I am writing about this without accusation. I am hoping to start a real dialogue between those of us whose views are different from one another. This is how I see the left fork working and the issues that are truly important to me {it is not a comprehensive list, because I could write a dissertation on this subject}.
- TAXATION: Like every other American, I have my moments when complaints about taxing are part of my dialogue. Everyone hurts as April 15th rolls around. But just like everyone else, I pony up my fair share. I realize that my taxes pay for critical services {police, fire, education, infrastructure, military, and the provision of services to those in more need than I. Given that I have the luxury of having a higher income than many of my peers, I believe that I should pay taxes at a higher percentage than my less fortunate brethren. The tax system is set up so that those who earn more will always have more money than those who earn less. Wealth always remains wealth. For those of us on the left, there is a somewhat redistributive nature to taxation. Ultimately, however, liberals generally agree that wealth is good, poverty is bad. Those with wealth have a responsibility to those in poverty.
- IMMIGRATION: Rhetoric is not an immigration philosophy. Liberals want comprehensive immigration reform as much as any conservative. The problem is how this immigration reform must occur. Campaign promises to build a wall is a reversion to the past. There are much newer, more effective means of controlling our borders, whether the northern or the southern border. We have 25 million either undocumented immigrants or those whose documentation has run out. These situations include our DACA children and young adults and thousands upon thousands of University students. Liberals want to see major immigration reform which includes a humane and effective way to move the undocumented toward a path to green cards. We want to see effective policing of our borders, including drones, additional border agents, fencing, and, yes, even a wall where it is more efficient. We also need a humanitarian way of providing asylum to families attempting to enter the United States. Immigration reform should be a high priority for the nation.
- EDUCATION: One of the most basic of innovations that have made the United States a shining beacon of light in the world has been the provision of a free and equal public education for all. This has been done by separating the public from the private and religious schools. Every family could either opt into the free system or move into the private system with the parents assuming the cost of private education. The past 40 years have turned our educational programs on their ears. We have become advocates of vouchers for private and parochial schools and of an endless array of community charters. Funds travel with children and every child that leaves the public school takes money away from public school services. Why is this the case? A school district has to fund a teacher whether the teacher has 25 or 40 students. The specialties are funded on rations from 1:2 all the way to 1: 400. As students leave the public school, specialists who used to be able to maintain their time in a single school now has to travel to 2 to 4 schools. This leads to less time specialists can spend with their students. Liberals believe that schools should be treated equally and children in the inner city should have as complete and competitive an education as students in rich suburban schools or those in private or parochial schools. We complain about generational poverty, but, in reality, we suborn that generational poverty by providing unequal education to large swaths of our school children.
- RELIGIOUS, SEXUAL, AND RACIAL EQUALITY: Most Americans of good will believe that all people are created equal and all should be treated equally and without prejudice. Pay should always be equal for equal work whether the recipient is male, female, or transgender. All individuals should be treated in a common manner regardless of sexual orientation, the amount of melanin in their skin, or the religion they follow {even if they don't follow any}. Every person should be allowed to serve his/her country. Every person should be able to live in whatever neighborhood they wish. To this end, we must condemn those who associate policy differences with anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Black and Brown, or anti-LGBTQ attitudes. None of these are policy issues. Just two simple examples: You can disagree with American unwavering support for Israel without being anti-Semitic. You can object to the scandals in the Catholic church without being anti-Catholic.
- A NON-POLITICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: We have lost the understanding that court appointments should be non-political. It is now almost a totally political process in choosing and moving judge nominees through the confirmation process. One of the most important checks and balances on our entire political system is that the judiciary should be non-political and act as a check and balance on the other two portions of government {which were designed to be political}. I don't know the solution to this problem, but a liberal concept is the fork in the road here should be to determine how we can get equal justice for all.
I haven't spoken about foreign policy or a myriad of other issues that face us as Americans. The five that I mention here will hopefully get an intelligent discussion started. What would the right fork do with these issues? Would the left fork take us in directions that are different from what I'm espousing.
No name calling, no denigration of those with other views than your own. Let's see where this goes.
Tags
Who is online
30 visitors
Let's try to get a really civil discussion going here. We have differing views, but let's respect where we each come from.
Those with wealth have a responsibility to those in poverty.
No they don't, other than to pay their "fair share" of taxes.
There are much newer, more effective means of controlling our borders, whether the northern or the southern border
Well, what are they? The Democrats know that some kind of barrier is part and parcel of that whole package, so why not fund a decent amount for that fraction? Any immigrant already in the US and "Dreamers" needs to be put on a fast track to citizen ship. The border should be closed to all who have criminal records, don't have acceptable work skills, don't have some economic resources, and those in ill health. That's going back to the Ellis Island way
One of the most basic of innovations that have made the United States a shining beacon of light in the world has been the provision of a free and equal public education for all.
In this day and age quality education in the PUBLIC SCHOOLS has gone pretty much astray. The kids are literally fed left wing propaganda from the very beginning reaching a peak in the college years. Parents should have a choice of where their kids go to school and vouchers should be available for all options, including private schools.
Most Americans of good will believe that all people are created equal and all should be treated equally and without prejudice.
Totally agree, but that is what the ideal utopian world would look like. Humans being imperfect as they are, I doubt they will ever evolve to that level....what I would call the Roddenberry view of the Universe.
We have lost the understanding that court appointments should be non-political. It is now almost a totally political process in choosing and moving judge nominees through the confirmation process.
Ideally, that should be the case. The law interpreted correctly and applied fairly. However, it has never been that way in my lifetime, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
There is not a single person in this country {unless they are pathological liars}, who doesn't feel that there are times where our tax burden goes beyond our "fair share". Unfortunately, there is no solution to this conundrum. Taxes are necessary for our government to function and provide those services which are necessary. We can talk about policies at a later time. I don't want to pay a 90% rate on income, as was done in the 1950s. I do believe that current taxation policy is counter to national needs. Tax reform should not be reverse enrichment. Instead of moving tax burdens from the rich to the poor {who are not able to pay current rates}, we should be working toward a more distributive {oops,,,a socialist word} system. A fairer way of doing tax reform would be to lower the marginal rates at about 1% a year while raising the top rates at approximately the same rate. If a plan was instituted using this type of system, taxes would always have more money coming in than going out. The amount of tax change should be capped at 5 to 8 percent. Those of us who are in upper tax brackets can afford these types of rate changes.
On the immigration issue, we are not that far apart. As far as immigration being a complex package, some of the innovations are simple, e.g. use of drones, increases in border patrols, increased number of immigration justices. Higher level interventions could include infra red detection, sophisticated radar, etc. We must also develop more methods of catching illegals at the ports of entry and a greater effort to catch drug dealers, human traffickers and other lawbreakers at those official points of entries. We also have to have our congress develop a clearer form of protection for asylum, with reviews every 3 to 5 years.
The education issue is and has been a greased pig. Blanket statements do not work here. Most notably, public education outperforms voucher or charter schools in private or religious schools in the areas of math and science. The verbal areas of testing are not significantly different. Public Schools outperform vouchers and charter programs in all areas of the curriculum. Charter schools don't work in the rural parts of the country because of the distance needed to travel to and from these schools. We complain about how the public schools have decreased in effectiveness. There is no doubt that this is true in some cases, but the solution has to be innovation at the public school level with adequate supervision of those programs. Poor performing schools need staff, money, and innovation. Use of video teaching of courses not offered in the public school, or self paced education should be attempted.
You are right that both total equality and the role of the judiciary are aspirational. Just because we don't have them yet {or maybe not in the foreseeable future}, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for them. Both would be great steps forward for our society.
Pretty sure that those two words don't mean what you think they do.
Our national divide has been evolving since political parties have been around not just the last 25 to 30 years. The divide has become so political from both major parties it may not have a chance to undivide
The divide isn't primarily political. That's just one aspect.
The divide is between those who follow their leaders, and those who decide their own path.
Politics, religion, ...
I contend that the divide is the result of growing conflict between individualism and collectivism (not to be confused with the Socialist collective).
Individualism is easier for us to understand since we are all individuals. And we generally agree that individual freedoms involve the ability to go where we want, do what we want, and say what we want (as examples).
Collectivism is a somewhat more difficult concept. A society is a collective made up of individuals living with each other; which is the fundamental definition of collectivism. That doesn't have anything to do with economics, politics, or propaganda. Individuals gather into a society to obtain collective freedoms. Some examples of collective freedoms would be freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from crime, freedom from conflict. Only a society can provide those types of collective freedoms and that's why humans live in societies.
A society subsumes the individual with a requirement for conformity. An individual exercising their freedoms to go, do, or say as they choose does not need the consent of the individual. However, an individual exercising those freedoms depends upon the consent of others in society to avoid infringing on the collective freedoms from fear, want, crime, conflict, etc.
increasing individual freedoms impose more limits on collective freedoms. And increasing collective freedoms impose more limits on individual freedoms. That's the source of the conflict.
Since Ronald Reagan became President, the political rhetoric of both parties have emphasized individual freedoms. Stating that 'government is the problem' is a declaration that societal limitations on individual freedom is the problem. The politics of both parties have endeavored to weaken the collective freedoms from fear, want, crime, and conflict that only a society can provide.
All the political arguments over the major issues have become a conflict between individualism and collectivism. When one party emphasizes individualism the other party emphasizes collectivism. And both parties are inconsistent in their stance across all the issues. Republicans argue for greater individual freedom concerning taxes. Democrats argue for greater individual freedom concerning immigration.
The demands to increase individual freedoms are in direct conflict with calls to come together as one nation. We cannot have both. If we are to be one nation then it will be necessary to accept limitations on individual freedoms. If we cannot accept limitations on individual freedoms then we cannot be one nation. That's the choice that must be confronted.
I am open to anyone's ideas about how to govern this country as long as it doesn't involve coercion. Coercion is immoral. Thus far we only have one member who has the unique intellectual ability to discuss the a viable form of socialism that uses zero coercion. Every other member that has promoted such ideology defends coercion as a necessary means for the greater good.
Government without coercion is nonsense. "Zero coercion" is anarchy, which quickly devolves into rule by the strongest - authoritarianism.
Taxes are needed to finance the government. Their collection is coercion. Traffic laws are coercion.
Coercion is required to protect property.
No government action is unanimously appreciated. Opposants will consider the action coercion.
I am surprised Bob, as someone who claims to be a christian you would say that. Jesus clearly states that coercion is wrong.
Oh?
Keep reading.....
Surely your ideas can be implemented without the immoral threat of violence if they are that sound. I'm hopeful.
Libertarianism and anarchy are good ideas, until you actually give them some thought.
Let's say a libertarian/anarchist who opposes all forms of coercion goes on vacation for two weeks and when he comes back there is a family of freeloaders and drifters living in his beautiful house on the lake.
Does the libertarian "coerce" them to leave or does he just hope they leave. See, the drifters don't believe in "private property" and they certainly don't think that our hero can force them to leave, they have bigger and more guns than he does.
If there is a government and he has a deed to his house he can go get LEGITIMATE authorities to deal with the drifters. If there is no government he must depend on his own private security forces to both remove the interlopers, although they may be outgunned, and to go to some form of court and prove he owns the property. Ah, but the freeloaders have their own "judge" who will affirm their ownership. Now we have some form of arbitration. lol
Libertarians and anarchists want us to go back to the days of medieval Europe or the old west where might made right and the law was fluid and flexible. It is unworkable and little more than a fantasy.
If you try to talk to a libertarian, the first thing you will hear are excuses. They know as well as you that it cannot work as advertised.
There are two kinds of libertarians. First, the Believers... who haven't thought it through, and will wriggle their way out of ever doing so. Second, the fakes, who use the term "libertarian" as a dog-whistle for more sinister ideas.
That made absolutely no sense.
You are wholly correct.
You can also say the same thing about socialists.
No.
Oh...you definitely can.
No believing socialist has ever really thought it through. It takes about 3 minutes to conclude it's not workable.
Hell, nobody supporting medicare for all has done any of the math on it.
And then you have the fakes, who love to talk about socialism simply to cover up their hate and wealth envy. Socialism is simply a great way for them to enslave rich people and make somebody else pay their bills.
My immediate reaction, when I read something like this, is "This person is not worth talking to, because they're have no idea what they're talking about."
Libertarianism is what doesn't make any sense. Without government there is no such thing as private property.
My immediate reaction to passive-aggressive nonsense is to think "this person is conceding the point".
You haven't thought it through, or you would be able to explain that thought process. Your devotion to socialism is about your "feelings", and lacks any intellectual foundation.
Over-the-top language deserves contempt.
Still no intellectual foundation.
Don't bother, Jack. I see no point in trying to converse with anyone who says stuff like, "No believing socialist has ever really thought it through." I'm not going to waste my time.
From personal experience, Jack has a very wide range of meaning for the term 'socialism' (slogan level) so you would have to be willing to pin down a specific usage of the term.
No. He has shown me that he's not worth my time. Unless he somehow shows me otherwise, that's how it will be.
If he wants to burn straw-men, let him.
Understood. I have concluded a while back that you have given up trying to explain socialism in online forums.
I haven't "given up"... but when someone says something like that, it is they who are refusing conversation.
Note that I am not saying Jack couldn't possibly be a worthwhile conversation partner. Rather... he is saying that I - and you and DS and ... - are a priori not worth talking to, because we "haven't thought it through".
Well.. of course... in your case, he may be right...
I was not making a comment on this particular event, but in general. I rarely see you opine on socialism and never to any depth.
There are too many people who have their minds made up... about things that they do not know.
Lots of bad faith...
If I find someone who really wants a discussion, though, I certainly would be in.
Please don’t try to persuade me on the so called virtues of socialism. I categorically reject it and will to so to the point that it will only apply to me if backed up by storm troopers with guns.
My wide range definition is derived from the various socialists I interact with.
You have a different definition than Bob, who has a different definition various other people.
One cannot understand socialism by blending anecdotal information. That is what causes people to come up with the confused notion that socialism is:
If one's operating understanding of socialism is a collection of contradictory (and largely undesirable) notions - that is an indication that one does not understand the subject matter. One might, however, have gathered a fine list of what has been attached to the label.
I suggest starting at first principles: the objective of distributed economic control by the people, not by a minority.
Different people proposing socialism have different definitions of it.
It makes zero sense to talk about your brand of socialism to Bob...who advocates redistribution of wealth, seizure of private property, huge government control, and authoritarian rule [deleted]
You have your model. But as much as you try to limit conversation on "socialism" to the positives in your specific model, you don't own the term. There are 100 other people out there trying to convince us all that public schools and libraries are socialist. I know that frustrates you, but that's how it's working.
Please do not misquote me. I do not advocate:
- seizure of private property,
- huge government control, or
- authoritarian rule.
TiG and I have the same definition of socialism: Popular ownership of the means of production and distribution. That is the standard definition.
It's interesting that you feel such a need to misrepresent others' ideas.....
Tig actually can explain voluntary socialism that doesn't utilize coercion. It's an interesting concept that I actually take no issue with.
You should ask him to explain it to you.
Pretty much my main point, Jack. If you read my comments on this subject, I routinely advocate people to do research rather than simply accept what others claim.
I do this precisely because the word ‘socialism’ is horribly overloaded to the point of absurdity. And most of the usages are emotionally founded rather than intellectually derived.
So check out how often I recommend people conduct their own research in this area - might help you understand my purpose here.
Claiming that I am promoting ‘my’ model of socialism illustrates that you ignore what I write and simply make obnoxious claims. Do some research Jack.
Exactly! And apparently you understand that they are entirely confused. So if you tried to help them understand why they are confused would you be advocating your brand of socialism ... some utopia ... or would you be trying to encourage them to actually learn something about the subject?
And there exist myriad theoretical approaches for how that principle might be realized.
If people could just grasp the idea that distributed economic control by the demos is a defining characteristic of socialism they might realize that statist notions, for example, are the exact opposite of socialism.
It isn't just about you. There are almost always multiple people involved in these discussions.
Sure. And most of the views of why we should enact socialism are absurd and emotional. Again...you're not the only one using the term.
You have done so on other seeds. Repeatedly.
It's actually quite expected that you disavow yours, given that you never seem to be able to manage a cogent defense of them.
Been down that road several times.
I think it's a highly, highly unrealistic theory. He doesn't mind that.
Again..."your" model in the sense that you support it and you bring it to the discussion.
You're not the only one with an education.
You're talking about two different things, and you do both.
Never.
I've encountered this phenomenon before: an interlocutor who ignores what I actually say, and instead "understands" something completly different, sometimes even contradictory.
The person is so convinced they know what I mean to say that they don't bother to listen to what I actually say.
This sinks to absurdity, when, as here, the person goes on to "quote " what their erroneous certainty has told them.
I'm quite sure you are convinced of what you say, Jack. But you're wrong. You're not listening to me. You're listening to yourself, pretending to be me.
Agreed. You are the one stubbornly and repeatedly claiming that I am advocating my own utopic system. Repeating: I advocate people to do research on the subject matter and not simply adopt what some other human being merely claims.
Agreed. I am one of those advocating people understand what they are talking about. Do some research. Quit arguing based on a simplistic understanding - one that is no more information bearing than a political slogan.
Since I have even in this thread repeatedly stated that I explain socialism rather than advocate it (if I were to advocate a system we would have to be talking about a specific system - not general principles) your repeated allegations are clearly simply to be obnoxious.
You did not answer my question. Tells me you understood my point.
Gotta agree Bob. Jack is demonstrating this perfectly.
I strongly suspect this is not a result of ignorance; seems more like deliberate obnoxious quipping to me.
In general, I think you are spot on here.
I think there is some of both. Since the person - Jack in this instance - "knows" what we're thinking, we seem to him to be cheating if we say anything different.
Since he thinks we're cheating, he feels free to cheat, too - "we started it, after all!".
Downward spiral...
It would not be so obnoxious if it were simply misreading what I wrote. I have quite a bit of patience and will certainly take the time to explain my position in various ways. But to repeatedly insist that what he claims is my position, my beliefs, my thought process, my objective is true and that my repeatedly stated position, beliefs, thought process and objective is not true is just a bit too far over the line for me to offer the benefit of the doubt.
That's what's fascinating.
It doesn't matter what you say; he hears what he knows you mean. There's no dishonesty involved.
It's frustrating, though, to be a bystander when you're supposedly participating.
Happens quite a bit on forums for a variety of reasons ranging from honest inability to comprehend to trolling.
I find that my patience is a function of the intelligence I perceive. The more intelligence, the less patience I have reexplaining clear English.
I know what you mean. When I get the impression that a person just doesn't have the means, I feel almost protective. I try to avoid arguing, because there's just no point.
OTOH, when I get the impression that the person is capable of understanding... my patience may run out pretty quickly.
The issue you have is that this is a small forum and people remember what you posted weeks or sometimes months ago. This is certainly not your first rodeo discussing socialism.
Of course I understood your point. I simply don't agree.
Educate people all you want. You are about as impartial on the topic as Bill O'Reilly. I don't understand why that bothers you.
They should remember. I wish people did accurately remember. But clearly you are one whose memory has been ' adjusted ' with your own views. Calling your bluff, here is the basic content of an article I wrote 6 months ago on Socialism ( What is Socialism ). I emphasized a few things in red to jar your memory:
___BEGIN EXCERPT___
Recently, since the election of a 'socialist' representative, there have been a series of pseudo debates on 'socialism'. The most obvious take away is that the meaning of the word 'socialism' is all over the map . This is nothing new. Here are some of the facets of a socio-economic/political system that people call 'socialism':
None of the above distinguish socialism from capitalism. Socialism is an economic system that (in theory) decentralizes control over the productive resources of a nation. Its objective is to have the people (as a whole) control how natural resources and labor are used in their civil society. Capitalism, in contrast, consolidates (as a by-product) control over the productive resources into the hands of a small minority.
Capitalism is the economic system in every significant nation. Regardless of the labels chosen, no significant nation exists wherein the people democratically control their productive resources. Socialism has never evolved in any nation - but the label 'socialism' has been used as a cover for some of the worst authoritarian States in history. In every extant nation, the control is by the State (i.e. politicians and government officials running the show) and/or by private enterprise (business leaders and aristocracy calling the shots). It is always a minority that controls productive resources. This is true in the USA as well - we have a fully functioning plutarchy where money rules and politicians comply.
Socialism, in contrast, is a theoretical approach wherein the individual contributor (typically called 'worker') has substantially more direct control over their economic opportunities. This is so different from how things work today and how people think, it is not likely to happen in any of our lifetimes (if at all) . But it is likely that we will see some migration towards socialism or possibly a new variant of capitalism .
The point of this article is to just get people to break free of slogans and labels about 'socialism' and understand (at least superficially) what socialism actually is trying to accomplish. This is not about agreement ( I personally have plenty of things to say in disagreement ) but rather about being properly informed .
Here is a very simple (and good) introduction to one theoretical model called 'Economic Democracy'. Here is a link to a more detailed description and there is plenty more information out there for those who are interested.
Socialism, if it ever happens, will necessarily be the product of gradual evolution . If the people of a nation are not engaged and do not seek democratic control over their productive resources then it seems impossible for socialism to ever function . And the notion of forcing socialism is absurd on its face since it, in essence, would be forcing the people to cooperate.
Based on the history of human nature, we may be a species that will always rely upon select leaders to do our thinking for us . If so, some variant of capitalism will likely be the economic system of the future . But for now, we can at least discard slogans and labels and understand what a system that is arguably (and intentionally) the opposite of capitalism might look like .
___END EXCERPT___
My position then is exactly how I stated it here. Do you see me advocating socialism in my article or do you see me explaining socialism to encourage people to at least get past a political slogan level understanding of the term? Do you see me describing socialism as a utopia or do you see me noting that it is so different from how things work today that it is unlikely to emerge as a national system in our lifetimes? Do you see me stating socialism is necessarily the best future system or noting that a better system might also be a variant of capitalism?
Yeah, how odd that I respond when someone repeatedly tries to misrepresent my position, insists he knows my position better than I do and implies that I am lying about my position. Who would find that to be obnoxious?
I would. Did.
Hell yes. How do you not see it? How do you imagine everybody does not see it? It's like when you were in junior high and talked about a girl non-stop for 3 hours, argued with anybody who dared say anything bad about her, and then tried to tell everybody you don't like her. Nobody believed it then, either.
You repeatedly and unwaveringly refute any criticism of the term socialism. You attempt to limit use of the term to describe only the tiny list of elements that make it look favorable. When someone points out the obvious problems with the ideas you forward, you ignore those problems and claim that's not what you're talking about or that the person raising the problems doesn't understand the concept you're describing. If all that fails, you turn pedantic and quibble over terminology like "admit" vs. "conclude", and/or launch personal attacks.
While we're calling bluffs, thanks for digging this up......
But you don't believe the system is too good for the people? Riiiiight.
And again......
So people will need to evolve into better humans in order to make this work....but it's not utopian or anything..... OK. Sure.
Brilliant! This is a perfect example of what I said above .
It doesn't matter what TiG actually says, because you "know" what he really means. You "know" that he really means exactly the opposite of what he says. And you are outraged that he dare say that he doesn't mean what you "know" he means!
The truly remarkable thing here is that you probably believe yourself. You don't need an interlocutor. You are perfectly capable of holding both sides of the discussion.
Now we see the very best you can muster.
I just delivered proof of my position going back 6 months and rather than acknowledge your mistake you ignored every point. Worse, you actually spent time ( LOL ) hunting for quotes to continue your obnoxious charade. The very best you could find were two quotes where I describe societal differences that would need to be in place for socialism to work.
You attempt to sell these as me describing socialism as a utopia!?
Your very best is to ignore what is on the table and instead resort to two quotes that you spin like hell and still fail to support your allegation.
A blatant display of intellectual dishonesty Jack.
It does not even matter what I wrote 6 months ago in my article where I clearly lay out my position. Well before this interchange even took place. Hard to imagine better proof. But, clearly, Jack is not interested in the truth of the matter - my guess is that he finds it entertaining to be obnoxious.
I am convinced that he knows he is wrong.
That's why I quoted him.
BTW I'm smirking now. Good luck with this.
What was that about not paying attention to what people actually say? You're projecting your "feelings" onto other people.
What indication would you have of my "outrage"? Do tell.
And yet here you are. Despite numerous "threats" to never respond to me again, multiple ridiculous protestations about "not taking me seriously" despite even more pathetic and sad little passive aggressive insult attempts like we're all in elementary school.
It's an awful lot of effort, Bob. It might be easier to just defend your own points.
Mentioning that, I took a look back up the page in search of something substantive or intelligent you've actually contributed to the discussion.... and all I manage to find are those cowardly little insult attempts.
Do help me out. Did you actually have anything to say about socialism or is this just about your personal dislike of me?
I don't dislike you, Jack. I don't like you, either. I don't care one way or the other.
Like quite a few members, you interest me, intellectually. I'd like to understand how you function.
You seem impervious to anything anyone says. That's very strange, so I'm curious.
Do you support your local fire and police forces?.....They are socialism constructs......Do you believe in labor laws {e.g. limitations on child labor, workweek length, etc.}…...They are socialism constructs......Do you believe that your children or grandchildren have a right to a free education?.....They are socialism constructs...…..Do you believe in social security, medicare, etc?....They are socialism constructs.
We practice a meld of pure socialism and pure capitalism. What makes us different is that we have accepted differing "isms" as in the public interest. There are reasons that are acceptable in every "ism". With our current presidents, we are seeing a battle over our social/capitalism and the president's fascism.
That is not socialism nor are the mentioned services constructs of socialism any more than they are constructs of capitalism. The presence of public services is not a defining characteristic of socialism. If it were, then every nation on the planet would be 'socialist'. Nothing you mentioned distinguishes socialism from capitalism. And, indeed, everything that you mentioned exists in capitalist nations.
I agree completely, but there is an important point here.
Some "services to the collectivity" are provided by the collectivity: police, military, ...
Some "services to the collectivity" are provided by private companies: Internet, telephone, taxi,
Some are... "depends on where you live"! Is the subway municipal or private? The bus system?
Looking at different "services to the collectivity"... and trying to figure out why they are public or private... is a very interesting topic. Worthy of conversation.....
No argument, but my point really was on what constitutes 'socialism'. The operative question of course is:
What are the defining characteristics of socialism?
'Socialism' is so overloaded nowadays, the term is meaningless. People should just describe what they mean rather than attempt to use 'socialism' as a descriptive label because that has the opposite effect (confusion).
The term is so straightforward that it can only be misunderstood... on purpose.
I will grant that decades of Capitalist propaganda have tarred the word "socialism" with a ton of erroneous notions... but there, too, the only way to persist in believing them is... on purpose.
So you do good work in reiterating the correct meaning of the term every once in a while. If there are people who wish to learn, you provide a good source.
Sadly... most of the people on NT who "misunderstand" the word "socialism" do so purposefully. They are "warriors for their cause" who have been taught that destroying language is to their cause's advantage. They do not want to learn from you... and they do not want anyone else to learn from you.
"Socialism is Satan's work!" ... and they're fine with that...
I am convinced that most people do not purposely misunderstand the concept. They just do not try; they do not invest any time in research. They accept with little question the political-slogan-level meanings attributed to the term over decades. Most do not seem to even comprehend the contradictions of these various usages.
I am also convinced that most people stubbornly cling to whatever definition they have superficially acquired and, even when informed, refuse to even consider the remote possibility that maybe some more research is in order.
This is not just NT as you know.
For some that certainly is true. Generally I think the idea is ' socialism ' = ' any facet of a socio-economic/political system that I dislike '. For these folks, the term ' socialism ' is an emotive tool - a partisan weapon.
Worse though is that our media outlets (and politicians like Sanders and Cortez) totally confuse the concept. Who could possibly be clear on what 'socialism' means when the media, et. al. abuse the term to simultaneously describe the systems of the former USSR, Venezuela, Nordic countries, public services (and on and on ...)?
People are afraid to let themselves doubt. They cling to their certainties. Yes, I understand that.
But on NT, they are supposedly trying to learn ...
It is what it is, right?
And....to his credit.....admits that such a system is totally theoretical and not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
Don't talk about libertarianism like that.
TiG refers to socialism that way, but it's true about libertarianism as well.
There is quite a difference between stating a conclusion and making an admission .
But it is a fact that socialism remains purely theoretical at the national level. Pockets of experimentation continue with the most notable being Mondragon .
Really?
We've had several discussions about your idea. You've taken exception to my use of the word "utopian", but it's very clear that you feel the system you describe would be far, far superior to the current state of affairs.
However, to your credit, you are wise enough to understand the obvious difficulties facing widespread adoption of your idea....first and foremost being competition for talent from the current capitalistic structure.
I take exception to the label 'utopian' because I do not present socialism as a utopia. My purpose is to encourage people to do some research before tossing about the label socialism because the common meanings attributed to that label are as information-bearing as a marketing (or political) slogan.
The fact that I take the time to describe socialism does not mean that I am a socialist or that I even advocate it. Especially obvious when I make it quite clear that socialism is a theoretical system that I do not see would apply to today's societies (i.e. a nation actually operating with a socialist system) and that the next, improved version of an economic (or even socio-economic/political) system might be some variant of socialism or a variant of capitalism.
Mondragon is currently the best example of socialism in practice, but it is a microcosm operating within a system of capitalism - socialism is not the economic system for Spain.
It is not my idea. Your passive aggressive plays such as labeling socialism as 'my' idea or as something I deem 'utopia' makes it a bit difficult for me to take seriously anything you write about this subject.
Think a bit bigger. The move from feudalism to capitalism was evolutionary. As a feudalist lord you would never be able to imagine a system wherein clever serfs would grow entities operating in a market and end up, in effect, controlling the economy of a nation. There would be countless obvious barriers one could enumerate to illustrate capitalism would be impossible.
As I have stated several times, an abrupt move from capitalism to socialism would not happen short of the demos engaging in a revolution and the resulting anarchy somehow magically forming into a socialist based system when the dust settles. Seems entirely ridiculous to me. The move from our current capitalist paradigm (minority control of the economy) to one based on socialism (distributed control of the economy) would necessarily be the result of evolution, not revolution.
You have said that society is currently too flawed to adopt the system you propose. The system is too good for the people? Not utopia?
Do you really believe you don't advocate it? Really?
It is "your" idea in the sense that you are the person advocating it in these conversations. Just like regulated capitalism is "my" idea and Manchester United is "my" team.
And your pretense that you're not an advocate does the same.
They did imagine it. That's why many of those barriers were placed intentionally.
We agree there.
It's worth stating here that our current capitalist systems allow for distributed control of the economy. Any person who wants ownership in their business can start one in an afternoon.
There are systems built in to AID in distributing control of the economy. People with large amounts of assets are eternally looking for new ways to distribute that control for the purpose of multiplying profits. That's what Goldman Sachs does, all day every day. They find opportunities for wealthy clients to invest in upcoming businesses. That's also how Peter Theil makes his money.
Further, things like ESOPs and profit sharing plans have been around for decades, distributing ownership of the means of production among workers.
I wrote no such thing! I state that current society thinks and operates differently (culture, work-ethic, etc.) than what is needed for socialism to work. And it would not be adoption (as in making a choice to accept what is given to them), it would be something the people naturally evolved to.
Wrong again. The system is at odds with our current way of thinking and operating.
Correct. First of all, to even consider the notion of utopia we would need to be discussing something specific - not general principles. Second, I doubt I would find any system utopic. You constantly telling me what I think -after being repeatedly corrected- is presumptuous and arrogant.
Best to read what I write (and rewrite and rewrite) rather than make claims for me.
Yes. Learn the difference between explaining something and advocating it. I can explain the rise of the Nazi party without advocating it. I bet you could explain modern liberalism without advocating it. So, yes, 'really'.
Lame. Again, if you were explaining the dynamics of contemporary liberalism in the House today, would you find it appropriate for me to call it 'your' liberalism?
This is now nothing short of trolling — stubbornly and repeatedly telling me what I believe after being both informed that you are wrong and given explanations as to exactly why you are wrong.
First you are claiming that, prior to the emergence of mercantilism and certainly capitalism, most everyone believed that serfs would someday rise to take effective control of the economy. Second, you missed the point that feudalism did not abruptly move to capitalism. It was an evolution that, in part, required the serfs to evolve sociologically to be in a position to effect capitalism. Had they not evolved as they did, capitalism would not be as it is today. The system is a function of the people. Same would be true of socialism.
Clearly, then, you are not following what I have written on the subject since that is not the concept of distributed control to which I refer. Also, it is naive for you to claim that anyone can realistically start a business. Sure, they can create a legal entity and go through the motions, but capitalization is not available to 'any person who wants ownership'. You trivialize what is required to start up a viable business.
Good grief man, profit sharing is not distributing control over the productive resources of the economy. It is literally sharing in profits. By your reasoning, my ownership of public securities is an example of distributed control over the productive resources of the economy. Maybe you really do not understand this concept after all.
Can't herd a whole bunch of cats without a little coercion.
Well, thanks.
But if someone seriously wants to learn about socialism at its core as well as current theoretical work then they should engage Dignitatem Societatis .
However, Dig will not be as patient as I am. He is a wealth of information but will not spend his time trying to get people past their mental blocks and biases. I do not blame him a bit — I suspect for the super majority it is pointless to even try.
Nonetheless, a serious and sincere individual who wants to ask questions and engage a knowledgeable socialist has the opportunity to do so.
Most of what I know about it I have learned from you. So it has done some good.
Happy to hear that. Welcome to the minority.
Seems to me the only way to avoid coercion is to obtain consent. The political system of the United States is based upon the consent of the majority obtained by voting.
The problem is that the majority in the United States is not monolithic. The majority is different in different parts of the country. The majority in one part of the country may consent to limitations on individual freedoms that would be unacceptable to the majority in other parts of the country. So attempting to govern as though the majority is monolithic throughout the country cannot avoid coercion.
The United States does not have a single government. There is the national government, state governments, county governments, and city governments. IMO to avoid coercion as much as possible it is necessary to respect the choices made by the majority at the lowest level of government.
The estimable late PM of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, said that the great discovery of the West was not democracy, but civil rights.
Decisions may be made democratically. That's easy. It's limiting those decisions that's tricky.
The decision making process can be equipped with rumble strips: qualified majorities, successive votes, programed delays, and so on. But something must exist to protect the minority, above and beyond all that. Civil rights.
A minority at the national level is not a minority everywhere in the United States.
The argument being made is actually very conservative. The conservative view is that both individual freedoms and civil liberties are subordinate to a higher authority. The higher authority may include things like traditions, historical precedent, and moral principles. The conservative view is that higher authority must be allowed to impose limits on civil liberties and individual freedoms without consent.
Not being a conservative (to say the least), I don't know if that's accurate. I find it shocking.
The fundamental idea of "rights" is that they are innate, intrinsic to humanness. There may be no infringement on "rights"... except by other rights.
Being innate means that neither individuals or society are the source of rights; individuals or society does not grant rights. Innate rights are granted by a higher authority and that higher authority is inviolate. The higher authority could be God, nature, tradition, historical precedent, moral principles, etc. The conservative view is that the higher authority takes precedent over individual freedoms and civil liberties.
As an example, a woman's right choose is not an innate right, that is a right granted by society and is only made possible by human intervention. A right to life is an innate right granted by a higher authority and that higher authority is inviolate. The conservative view is that the innate right to life granted by a higher authority takes precedent over a woman's right choose granted by society.
No. Innate rights are not granted by anyone. They are innate....
Society does not "grant" these rights... but does "recognize" them... or not.
What is or is not an innate right is a subject for debate, but the characteristics of innate rights are not.
That is correct. The source of innate rights is some higher authority above and beyond individuals or society. The higher authority is inviolate; therefore, rights provided by that source are inviolate.
Not all rights are innate. Society does grant certain rights.
If the argument is that the individual is the source of innate rights that allow individual freedoms then the argument devolves into a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
No.
There is no source. They are a part of being a person.
Pretty sure that there is no such thing as "rights" in the real world unless you can pay for them.
If rights are a part of being human then humans are the source of rights. That inevitably leads to a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
The idea of innate rights was the great contribution of America's Founding Fathers.
Authoritarians will always try to deny the existence of innate rights, so those of us who believe in human dignity will always be required to defend them.
Only in the sense that humans are the "source" of bone marrow, muscles, lungs, ...
What is your definition of each of these words? I suspect that the topic is more semantic than real.
Then the source of innate rights is nature that allowed evolution to culminate in the human species. That means innate rights are an inviolate authority above and beyond individuals or society. Individuals and society are subordinate to the higher authority of innate rights. That is a conservative viewpoint.
I provided that in comment 4 -- located here . Yeah, I screwed up when making comment 6; I meant it to be a reply under comment 4.
From nature, from evolution, from fate, from luck, from God. Pick whichever higher authority you wish. The point of the definition is that innate rights are not created, endowed, or granted by individuals or by society or by government.
Innate rights is the conservative viewpoint.
... is not in love definition.
In lieu of a distinguished, known higher authority to inform us, how do we (human beings) know which rights are innate?
So, choose a different authority.
That doesn't change the fact that innate rights come from some other source than individuals or society. The concept of innate rights denotes that individuals or society did not create, endow, or grant those rights.
Of course reality is made up of many shades of gray. No one is absolutely liberal, progressive, or conservative; people hold a mix of attitudes and beliefs depending upon specific situations. While admittedly overly condensed and generalized, the differences between liberals, progressives, and conservatives can generally be characterized as follows:
1. Liberals emphasize individual freedom and either interpret individual rights or endow individual rights to increase individual freedom. Individual rights and freedoms supersede society and authority.
2. Progressives emphasize liberty (freedoms provided by a society) and either interpret or endow rights to increase collective freedom. Liberty (collective freedoms) supersede individual rights and freedoms (requiring conformity) and supersedes authority.
3. Conservatives emphasize innate rights and freedoms established by an inviolate higher (or ethical/moral) authority. Established ethics and morality supersedes individual rights and freedoms and supersedes liberty. Both individuals and society are required to conform to the innate ethics and morality established by an inviolate higher authority.
No! For the last time, innate rights do "not come" from anywhere. They are innate.
Then innate rights came into being with the Big Bang. Innate rights cannot be altered just as the speed of light cannot be altered.
That's a very conservative viewpoint.
Nerm, my question ...
... is serious.
There is no 'in lieu of'. Within the context of any single authority, the ethics/morality is inviolate. It's the paradox of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. That's why there has been so much conflict throughout history over who or what is the ethical/moral authority.
Innate rights are a function of each authority? What are considered innate rates by one authority might be different than the innate rights under another?
Correct.
I agree.
Thinking globally and acting locally seems to be what it boils down to.
no... have you read the news?
globalism is a failed plan.
This is why the federal government should have less power and the states more so that we can all live where our preferred rules have power yet we are still one federal republic. So if Texas wants more pure capitalism and New York wants a variation of socialism both could do so without coercion of the other.
I'm all in for a civil discussion.
Taxation: The critical idea here is "fair share". I would argue that you probably pay a bit more than your fair share. There are over 100 million Americans who pay nothing. I'm not advocating a flat tax or anything, but IMO "some income" should precipitate "some tax".
Immigration: It's a mess and it needs a fix. Comprehensive immigration reform could very well include a wall. It can't be limited to that, but the two ideas are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Education: You absolutely cannot pin the ridiculous state of our public education system on vouchers. The entire education structure in this country has been steadily lowering minimum standards for decades. We've been rubber stamping illiterates with diplomas and we are now rubber stamping college kids with degrees that mean nothing. Liberals claim to believe education should be equal, but the rich ones all send their kids to private schools while allowing standards to continually slide.
Pay should always be equal for equal work: This is a massive oversimplification. Pay should be whatever the employer and employee agree upon. All employees doing the same job are not the same. All college degrees are not the same. I have a Harvard graduate working for me. He does not get paid the same as other people doing similar work. Experienced employees make more than rookies. There are soooooo many variations that "equal pay for equal work" is just a fantasy.
To this end, we must condemn those who: No....we need to stop condemning. That's how we got here. People are entitled to their opinions....even the politically incorrect ones. When liberals go around in ceaseless outrage condemning anybody who dares question hard core left ideology, they're picking a fight. They don't realize that although public figures frequently cower in the face of that mob, regular Americans do not. We don't give a crap how angry they are. They don't get to tell people how to think.
A NON-POLITICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM: We had two women accuse Brett Kavanaugh, and then later admit they lied about it. So I'm not sure how we get to "equal justice for all" when so many people on both sides of the spectrum make up their minds about justice based on cultural identity or politics.
in a word? Ideology
and yes, there is no middle ground to be found.
capitalism - vs - socialism
place your bets, all my chips are on red and am lettin it ride.
cheers
Pretty sure it is not the black or white you envision. Think varying shades of gray.
shades of grey are for people who hedge their bets or wish to deceive others
I'm not one of them.
Our nations future?
World wide human die off wont help this planet.
But hey I'm all for socialism as long as I can keep my guns.