Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism

[lostclause]

Obviously it would be best to have socialism with a healthy blend of other -ism's.

Everything can be solved by -ism's!

 

[Danik93]

I believe that nothing is 100% positive and nothing is 100% negative. I'm personally a Liberal so i take some of the good socialistic stuff (such as free healthcare well that's about it but still) and then i take the good stuff from Capitalistic and mix it up with a large dose of Liberalism.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

snip

Your argument is well stated, but you ignore some of the basics. If you have rights, and everyone else has rights, you cannot exercise your rights to infringe upon theirs. You can't pursue happiness by stealing your neighbor's piano and violating his right to property. You can't use your liberty to imprison someone, denying them liberty.

And by the same logic, you cannot demand that the government take money from other people and spend it on your healthcare, since you are violating their right to property.

"QED"? Really? You can stretch a definition all you want, but it'll always snap right back.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Pure socialism is a bad thing, but so is pure capitalism.
A perfect country would have a mix of the two.

Genius, Finding the right balance is the key and not letting politicians get too much power is important.

 

[scrambledeggs]

It's clear not many people (on the first page at least) don't know much about the difference between communism and socialism and what it really means.

 

[Jark212]

Pure socialism is a bad thing, but so is pure capitalism.
A perfect country would have a mix of the two.

Throw in some Fascism and we got a deal.

 

[Mcupobob]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

I'm tailoring this response specifically to the American situation because it relies on arguably the most American document ever written (the Declaration of Independence), but for the record I happen to agree with most if not all of what that Document says, despite not myself being American.

I quote from the Declaration (retrieved in this instance from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, if well-being (i.e. the result of healthcare) is a necessary component of or condition for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, then in America it must be considered an 'unalienable' (near enough = natural) right. It's clear that a certain amount of healthcare is necessary for life, though of course the US government just about manages to provide that. I think poor health is also a great oppressor, if of nothing else then at least of the human spirit. I accept that this is controversial, but I don't think anyone would argue that there are a whole bunch of non- or only distantly-life-threatening conditions which dramatically restrict a person's liberty, sensibly construed. I'm not going to argue that total biological and psychological well-being is a necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness, as that's not so much a slippery slope as a greasy, sheer cliff with some sort of black hole at the bottom and a minefield on the way down, BUT there's a certain level of well-being that *is* a necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness, and it's more than just guaranteed first aid if you get knifed.

QED?

I'm not a supporter of total universal healthcare - I certainly don't think people should be entitled to tax-funded antibiotics or antivirals for a cold, for instance - but in the specific case of healthcare, I don't think the arguments against socialism apply; 'socialised' healthcare isn't going to deincentivise (sp?) initiative and labour.

Seee your reading to much into it. The right of life does not mean someone has to support you with thier money it means no one can Kill you/enslave or take away your right to life. If you die on your own then its your fault.

 

[Xero Scythe]

I've just recently Read the full thread on the Anti-Obama posters and a lot of it mentions Obama being a Socialist and Obama not being a Socialist and what not. Now my question isn't really Obama related I just want to know what's so bad about Socialism in General?.

Edit: Okay from looking at peoples reactions it seems I may a phrased this wrong, I'm not talking about the purest of socialism, I'm more talking about what we have in the UK and most of Europe (I also believe Canada as it but I won't speak for Canadians incase I upset some one although I'd be grateful if some one would confirm this).

Also an Edit: This hasn't been a big issue at the moment with the posts but I imagine others may look and post on this later on and I just want to make it clear that this thread isn't about saying Capitalism or Communism sucks or about comparing Capitalism or Communism for socialism. You may do this of your own free will(Compare and such) but please remember that this isn't what the thread is about and try and not start and flame wars over "Mines the best" "No mines the best please".

socialism in and of itself (the ideal) is not bad. it actually worked really well for Benito Mussolini and, believe it or not, America during a depression. the only reason people are so hyped up about it is because socialism is the direct interference of government with the ecomomy. america ideals are all about capitalism, free market, free trade, and basically lassiez faire, which is french for 'hands off'.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

we tried it in china, it doesnt work. capitalism is the way to go

 

[Jekken6]

I'd prefer a capitalist society with socialist elements (stuff like healthcare)

 

[CrystalShadow]

Socialism would be great if it could work but people would take advantage of it so ultimately it is an idiolistic dream that can never happen although would be nice.

So is full employment when taken in relation to a capitalist economy. In other words, there will always be unemployed people. So what do you do with them? Ignore them?

snip

Your argument is well stated, but you ignore some of the basics. If you have rights, and everyone else has rights, you cannot exercise your rights to infringe upon theirs. You can't pursue happiness by stealing your neighbor's piano and violating his right to property. You can't use your liberty to imprison someone, denying them liberty.

And by the same logic, you cannot demand that the government take money from other people and spend it on your healthcare, since you are violating their right to property.

"QED"? Really? You can stretch a definition all you want, but it'll always snap right back.

Ah, but rights are a logical fallacy anyway. You have precisely those rights which you can personally defend. And believe me, those are few and far between.

People have no inherent rights, merely the illusion of having them. Consider how easily any 'right' is taken from you. - How can it be a 'right', if anyone can just choose to deny you that right if they happen to feel like it?

Who protects these 'rights' of yours? The government. Who is the biggest risk for denying these rights? Again. The government.

It's really obvious to anyone that looks closely at reality that there's no such thing as 'rights', but merely a set of conventions of how we would prefer to be treated.

In a truly fair system, most western countries, America included, would be much, much, poorer than they are today. And even leaving that aside, what about the 'rights' of non-human life?

I'm not exactly giving all that much thought to the 'rights' of all the things I eat, now am I?

In the end, 'forcing' everybody to pay for healthcare (or even social security, which is even more prone to being vilified.) does more good to society at large than the harm done in denying people the right to object.

You equate it with theft, apparently. But personally, I consider the alternative worse.
And unfortunately, giving people free choice in the matter usually results in a lack of resources for any given problem like this.

I support charity in the UK, and I was told only 4% of people here do... (and probably a rather minimal fraction of their income, at that.)
If we had to support things like welfare, the health service, public utilities, etc. From charity, I very much doubt there'd be much of anything available.

 

[Pocket Apocalypse]

Your argument is well stated, but you ignore some of the basics. If you have rights, and everyone else has rights, you cannot exercise your rights to infringe upon theirs. You can't pursue happiness by stealing your neighbor's piano and violating his right to property. You can't use your liberty to imprison someone, denying them liberty.

And by the same logic, you cannot demand that the government take money from other people and spend it on your healthcare, since you are violating their right to property.

I never said, and the declaration never mentions, that there is a right to property. If there is such a right, I think it is very much secondary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I agree that you can't oppress someone in the name of your own right to liberty (except, of course, if that person has somehow oppressed people and is judged by society and due process to be a criminal), but I don't think people are meaningfully oppressed by taxes which support a welfare state. It's clear we have different opinions of which rights are to be understood broadly and which narrowly, so we're unlikely to come to agreement on this, but I believe health is so wrapped up in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that it might as well be a natural right.

Crystal Shadow: I actually disagree with you about the status of rights. Call me old-fashioned, but I genuinely do believe we are 'endowed by our creator' with certain rights which are simple brute-fact parts of the human condition. I don't have a good argument for that, I just believe it because it fits with other beliefs of mine (like belief in a God, which I'm not going to get into an argument over because this is the internet).

Apologies to the thread starter, I realise I've pulled things a bit off-topic by focussing on healthcare in the US, where as I've said, I don't think the arguments against socialism generally apply. There certainly are things which shouldn't be controlled by government, like news reporting (though I don't want to rule out *funded* by government, since I'm a great devotee of the BBC - which the British government merely wishes it could control) and there are certainly things where there would be at best no gain from having government control, such as most industry. So, what's wrong with (economic) socialism, IMO, is that it can easily go too far.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Socialism is neither good nor bad, it's all in the implementation.

 

[Steelfists]

Number 1: Obama is not a socialist. His healthcare proposal is not socialist. If anyone tells you this, slap them.

Number 2: A good quote about socialism is from a Frenchman whose name I can't remember, I read it in a book about 1968... I think it was Daniel Cohn-Bendit or one of the other student leader's father. Anyway, it goes something like this.

"If my son wasn't a socialist before he was 20, I would fear for his heart. If he was a socialist when he was over 20, I would fear for his head".

 

[Sovvolf]

Edit: I'm not talking about the purest of socialism, I'm more talking about what we have in the UK and most of Europe (I also believe Canada as it but I won't speak for Canadians incase I upset some one although I'd be grateful if some one would confirm this).

>UK
>Socialist

Last time I checked the UK was predominately capitalist.

And last I checked the UK was a good mix of Socialism and Capitalism but leaned more towards the Socialism bar so it's far quicker to say Socialism then say Socialism with a bit of Capitalism.

 

[Sovvolf]

I refused to vote on this poll because there shouldn't just be two choices. It isn't good or bad, those are subjective adjectives and mean very little.

This I must apologise for as I apologised to the first guy who brought it up, I was in a big rush to get this thread out before I had to nip out to a friends house, so I didn't have much time to think of the answers, I was going to edit it later on but so many people have voted now it wouldn't seem fair to change the questions has people may have wanted to vote for some thing else and may have wasted there vote, I do apologise, this is my only my fourth thread here so haven't had much practise.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Socialism would be great if it could work but people would take advantage of it so ultimately it is an idiolistic dream that can never happen although would be nice.

So is full employment when taken in relation to a capitalist economy. In other words, there will always be unemployed people. So what do you do with them? Ignore them?

snip

Your argument is well stated, but you ignore some of the basics. If you have rights, and everyone else has rights, you cannot exercise your rights to infringe upon theirs. You can't pursue happiness by stealing your neighbor's piano and violating his right to property. You can't use your liberty to imprison someone, denying them liberty.

And by the same logic, you cannot demand that the government take money from other people and spend it on your healthcare, since you are violating their right to property.

"QED"? Really? You can stretch a definition all you want, but it'll always snap right back.

Ah, but rights are a logical fallacy anyway. You have precisely those rights which you can personally defend. And believe me, those are few and far between.

People have no inherent rights, merely the illusion of having them. Consider how easily any 'right' is taken from you. - How can it be a 'right', if anyone can just choose to deny you that right if they happen to feel like it?

Who protects these 'rights' of yours? The government. Who is the biggest risk for denying these rights? Again. The government.

It's really obvious to anyone that looks closely at reality that there's no such thing as 'rights', but merely a set of conventions of how we would prefer to be treated.

In a truly fair system, most western countries, America included, would be much, much, poorer than they are today. And even leaving that aside, what about the 'rights' of non-human life?

I'm not exactly giving all that much thought to the 'rights' of all the things I eat, now am I?

In the end, 'forcing' everybody to pay for healthcare (or even social security, which is even more prone to being vilified.) does more good to society at large than the harm done in denying people the right to object.

You equate it with theft, apparently. But personally, I consider the alternative worse.
And unfortunately, giving people free choice in the matter usually results in a lack of resources for any given problem like this.

I support charity in the UK, and I was told only 4% of people here do... (and probably a rather minimal fraction of their income, at that.)
If we had to support things like welfare, the health service, public utilities, etc. From charity, I very much doubt there'd be much of anything available.

Really not sure the point you are trying to make in relation to mine and yes true socialism is a dream because people will always abuse the system and they even do in other systems to.

For unemployed people atleast in my country we have the unemployment benefit or "dole" so that is them sorted besides the fact that system is abused.

 

[Wayward Sean]

I refused to vote on this poll because there shouldn't just be two choices. It isn't good or bad, those are subjective adjectives and mean very little.

This I must apologise for as I apologised to the first guy who brought it up, I was in a big rush to get this thread out before I had to nip out to a friends house, so I didn't have much time to think of the answers, I was going to edit it later on but so many people have voted now it wouldn't seem fair to change the questions has people may have wanted to vote for some thing else and may have wasted there vote, I do apologise, this is my only my fourth thread here so haven't had much practise.

That's okay, that wasn't a knock against you. I was more trying to prove a point to everyone who was arguing the most radical viewpoints imaginable, when the issue logically needs to be looked at from both sides of the firing range.

 

[tmdude]

socialism and communism arent bad, pure communism would be great but its impossible due to people's greed