It's almost like all we have to do is say every kid should have a pony, and it magically occurs. Why wouldn't we do that???

bump 4 chadmack.

bump (again) 4 chadmack. We already get that you luv some socialism. Stopping by to repeat that while avoiding questions doesn't make your position very compelling, and it makes the forum pretty boring.

pvn so far i have gathered the following info

a) i like socialism

b) you know i like socialism but can't seem to understand why (prolly cause u don't know the truth about it)

c) you hate socialism

d) you believe strictly in an "every man for themselves" philosophy which would basically cause total chaos

what's the problem? i guess it's just a fundamental disagreement between us

I'll go even further. I'll prove to you that Society doesn't exist.

In what follows I take Society to be that ubiquitous entity in the Socialists' rhetoric, statements such as
o)Society owes me a good job
o)Society owes me medical care
o)Society owes me a pension

I'm not at all considering the 4:00pm tea and crumpet club Society, for example.

Notice first that a person who says that Society owes him a pension thinks that the rest of the world should give him something (if he had a pension himself, he wouldn't have requested one). So to each person saying Society owes him a pension, Society is the rest of the world.

If there is a set called Society, there ought to be something in it. Consider the number of people in the world. If it's 0, then there is obviously no Society (nobody around). Assume there's 1 person in the world, A. If A is the only person in the world, the rest of the world to A has nobody in it, so it's again obvious there can't be a Society. Let's go to the next case, 2 people in the world, A and B. To A, Society, the rest of the world, is the set {B}. Similarly to B, Society is the set {A}. Notice that there is nothing in common to both those sets -- there is no Society (Socialist variation; we already know about the 4:00pm tea and crumpet Society) in a two person world either. If there were three people in the world, A, B, C, you'll find that A thinks society is {B, C}, and B thinks Society is {A, C}, while C thinks Society is {A, B}. There is nothing common to those three sets. Induction will show you that it doesn't matter how many people there are in the world, there will be nothing in common to each person's definition of Society. We have therefore proved that the Socialists definition of Society doesn't exist. QED. As a corollary, we have verified Bastiat's theorem, "The State is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

This proof is dedicated to pvn. No one in the world knows more about the null set than he.

Straw man much? I didn't say obama is intellectually dishonest because he doesn't admit to being a full blown 100% rampant socialist. I said he refuses to admit that he believes in any of the core principals of socialism, which he obviously does.
Oh i don't either. But the reason the socialist word is political suicide in the US and not in Europe, is because the US was suppose to be different, and obviously today the direction it is headed has little difference to the socialist direction Europe is on. So our politicians are forced the play the Orwellian game of changing the meaning of political words, socialism is seen as anti-american, so capitalism becomes corporatism which leads to socialism. Nothing to see here folks... Still the land of the free, go back to your ballgames and tv sitcoms.

See that's the problem when you give government unlimited power in the name of socialism, it is only a matter of time before you get a Hitler type ruler at the helm of government.

How about Stalin was he socialist/communist enough?

In today's time is putin a good enough example of what unchecked government power looks like? How bout China?

How about east germany before the fall of the berlin wall?

None of these count?

As you can see today, just as any other time in history, any time you give government all the power in society, you get censorship of speech, you get secret police to enforce government policy and protect the rulers, you get wars... and it's all done under the guise of providing and protecting you. Socialism is just new packaging for the old ideals of elite rule, that has been the standard for 1000s of years of human history.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." --Thomas Jefferson

For me personally it's more the fact that it's a dumb theoretical construct that cannot work (which mean that I think people who belive in it are not exactly the brightest crayons in the box, maybe the dark red one or something).

Well that and that parts of my family lived under an advanced Socialist regime. You know the kind of stuff where walls are built to keep you from seeing your 2 year old child, where you're thrown in prison for disagreeing with the great planners, where you are spied on each day.

But I think you're just trolling so please spare the people that were indeed influenced by the great red banner with your babbling or try to make arguments that are something else than "but it's awesome doh".

Prove it?

Um you're really not answering the question. Lets assume aocialism is awesomeness and that me PVN and our few AC friends are total idiots. Why do you have the right to impose socialism on us? We want to live in our chaotic mad max world sans taxation why do you get to send people to our houses with guns to collect taxes and force us to join your socialist paradise?

Tell that pvn fellow, I believe he advocates free market anarchism as you said, that in the 1900's those damn chaotic anarchists killed in excess of the 30 million people murdered by socialist countries in WWII alone. I'll help you on that. I've been studying this issue for decades. So far I come up with about 22 murders caused by anarchists (non believers in capitalism though). I'll give you my list. If you can help me find another 29,999,978 murders attributable to anarchists -- you may not even need that many; I may have been off by a couple, we've got him dead to rights.

Wow! There's a flaw in the proof. I'm losing my touch. I've shown only that Society does not exist assuming that everyone in the world were Socialist, that is everyone in the world claims, "Society owes me a pension." If not everyone were Socialist, there would be some who don't proclaim, "Society owes me pension." The Society group is comprised of the non-Socialist residents of the world who owe all the world Socialists a pension. So the complete theorem should read, Society is comprised of all non-Socialists, and these non-Socialists are obligated and in debt to all Socialists for just about everything. What an onerous burden!

I'm thinking you picked that up from Greenspan.

Be careful what you ask for. In a seminal mathematical paper (see post #111), I've shown that if Socialists of the world can legally enforce demands such as "Society owes me a pension," then you and everybody else had better become Socialist. For if the whole world is Socialist, it turns out there is no Society, and nobody will owe anybody anything. If, however, there are some who hold out, non-Socialists, they will become the Society in "Society owes me a pension," and will owe all Socialists everything.

Rephrasing an important concept: In a world in which the only debtors for all obligations are Society and only Society, then if the whole world were Socialist, nobody would owe anybody anything, because there could be no Society.

Wow, the thread really got a lot of replies. Still celebrating from my Marxist communist socialist bretherens victory so let's see if I can give all this stuff a shot.

If you think "health care" is a right, do you think that people who were born, say, 200 years ago had their rights violated? They didn't get a polio vaccine! Who violated their rights to this life saving treatment?

Let's say I break my leg in the wilderness. A simple procedure could save my life, but I starve to death before anyone finds me. Have my rights been violated? If so, who should my estate sue?


I see you misunderstand my point. In those cases treatment was not available. On the other hand, if a hospital was admitted a patient and refused to treat, then perhaps there would be a violation of rights.

In the United States, in nearly all hospitals that there is a policy to treat everyone who comes into the emergency room and worry about payment later. Those who cannot pay have their cost eaten by the hospital. This cost is extended to the taxpayer. Would it not be better for a healthcare plan, to allow for preventive care as well as eliminating the wasate currently experienced?

Society does not act. It does not deny, it does not make decisions.
People do.
Instead of quoting all of your replies

It seems most of your concerns center around the idea that you have whatever you have and that no one should forcibly "take" anything away from you.

Is that valid?

I'm honestly trying to understand your arguments, if you think my questions are loaded, please feel free to advocate for the specific type of governing system.

Do you believe that there should be a government at all?

Since we love hypotheticals so much, let us assume for a moment that we are in an a society with 100 people, each of whom own one acre of land. By hook and by crook, one of them manages to obtain the land from the rest, and is now the owner of 100 acres of land. What is preventing the other 99 people from taking back their land?

Since we don't like the word society, a number of people form a government for numerous reasons, the protection of their liberties is merely one of them. In your view, how should the government protect a person's liberties? Should there even be protection of liberties?

How could that be legally enforced under an AC type system?

Socialism is basically "I have a right to x, so you owe me x" and then saddles the productive people with the burden to provide x. Whenever government can provide me with food, housing, a car, cell phone, clothing, health care, and protection from bad guys, I am in.

The only problem is who will provide all these goods and services? After all we are working with scarce resources here, including time. Eh, let's just ignore that second part of the equation. Now everbody pay up!

The funniest parts of my argument are

1. It's 100% true and accurate, no government can provide anything without first stealing it from someone else. If they could, there's a word for that...business.

2. This doesn't even factor in efficiency. Sure, in some dreamland government could collect taxes and then divert those resources to doctors, car companies, etc. but it wouldn't be efficient because who wants to risk capital when the return is basically whatever the government can rake in minus huge red tape costs. Cutting the red tape alone would make it more efficient but who knows how much food we need? What types of clothing? etc etc.

So far I don't have any objections. Are you going enlighten me?

Well, maybe, but not really relevant. I don't have any problem with socialists or socialism per se, as long as the socialists keep their schemes to themselves. I don't eat chocolate ice cream, but I don't hate it, nor do I want to deny chocolate ice cream to those who enjoy it.

absolutely false.

and this is based on?

ldo. what I'm asking you to do is explain your side to me. Maybe you'll change my mind.

OK, what right would that (perhaps) be? And what constitutes sufficient treatment? A band-aid?

Rights that are this vague are going to be basically impossible to defend. DUCY?

Maybe. If you think so, go ahead and pay for poor people to see a doctor.

Not exactly, but probably close enough for purposes of this discussion.

Sure, why not? You could call it that, I guess. If you want to sign up to be a member of some organization that collects money from you and gives you some rules to follow, I would not feel inclined to stop you from doing that. As for what particular system you should join, well, why are you asking me that? Do you expect me to tell you what clothes to wear? What food to eat? What books to read?

Nothing? And rightly so, it seems, since you've already specified in this crazy hypothetical that the one has obtained everything via "hook and crook".

How? I don't know. However they think is most effective, I guess. If one particular group is not effective at protecting the rights you particularly find important, don't you think you should have an option of switching to one that is more in line with your particular priorities? What would be so horrible about that?

My grocery store doesn't carry the organic cookies I like. Should I be free to switch to another grocery store, or should I be forced to stick with the one I've been going to?

If chadmack is simply going to post ******ed rhetoric, I suggest you ban him for not making any attempt to contribute.

i gotta go to class, i'll post a good theory of mine when i get back

meh i don't wanna go to class.

ok here's the thing with socialism. if people just live their lives how they want, and wanna be happy, then that's cool. all socialism does is make sure everyone can do that not just the select few. so when u go to work then u put ur money in a "pool" or however it works then everyone can just get what they need. in capitalism it's really crazy and everyone will eventually kill each other through greed/cheating. also capitalists just care about money which is very sick. they should be punished. no where on earth has capitalism ever worked where as socialism is a proven fact and great practice. you guys are so ignorant to think that i'm wrong and then say stuff like "he should be banned" such a typical capitalist -- "elitist" -- mentality.

I need everything that's in the pool.

you obviously are a greedy capitalist and couldn't function properly in a socialist society. that's why it will be hard to get to a socialist society because of people like you who "want it all"

You got some good points there. I may have to reconsider my dreams of becoming a Socialist, besides if everyone else also wants to be a Socialist, there won't be a Society who owes me what I want.

I think chadmack is just levelling/****ing with you guys for the fun of it.

Nope. You misread. I didn't say I "want" it all. I'm a good Socialists, but I just "need" it all.