Krauthammer on Obama-care. the coming VAT, etc
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Robert Bolton on 1 Apr 2010 22:40 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:08:07 -0400, "83LowRider" <any(a)ddresswilldo.com> wrote: > >"Bob Myers" wrote: >>> >>> >>>> OK, so here's a possibly fun exercise for the group: please give >>>> a simple, one-line definition of the term "socialist." (And show >>>> your work for full credit...) >>>> >>>> Once you've done that, for an extra-credit problem, give an >>>> example of ANY existing (or even possible) form of government >>>> that does not fall under that definition to some degree. >>>> Conversely, give an example of one which is the polar opposite >>>> of "socialist." >>>> >>>> Should be fun to watch... >>>> >>> Sorry, I'm not here to take an exam or to provide you >>> amusement/fodder. I'll say that I consider Castro and >>> Chavez to be socialist (I know - Castro=communism). >>> >> >> Wasn't asking you to. What part of "a possibly fun exercise >> FOR THE GROUP" did you have trouble with? > >The post was directed at me, asking 'me' to take >up your challenge. I declined, but gave you a fair >enough answer. If you care, you can certainly take >my points and give your opinion on them. Most do >not do so tho, rather they tend to divert away from >the subject entirely. > I think the post was directed at those who are participating in the discussion. I'd say socialism was the institution of activities intended to benefit the society. Socialism has been around a long time. Here's a glimpse into not too distant past. Note that it was running rampant even in the Colonies. http://www.allsands.com/potluck4/educationhistor_zlr_gn.htm How much socialism is too much is a matter of opinion. My guess is that it is merely a matter of opinion, and depends upon the society. People are social animals, and live in societies. I'd bet there is no society on the planet that has zero socialism. Robert
From: Bob Myers on 2 Apr 2010 16:43 On 4/1/2010 6:08 PM, 83LowRider wrote: > "Bob Myers" wrote: > >>> >>> >>>> OK, so here's a possibly fun exercise for the group: please give >>>> a simple, one-line definition of the term "socialist." (And show >>>> your work for full credit...) >>>> >>>> Once you've done that, for an extra-credit problem, give an >>>> example of ANY existing (or even possible) form of government >>>> that does not fall under that definition to some degree. >>>> Conversely, give an example of one which is the polar opposite >>>> of "socialist." >>>> >>>> Should be fun to watch... >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry, I'm not here to take an exam or to provide you >>> amusement/fodder. I'll say that I consider Castro and >>> Chavez to be socialist (I know - Castro=communism). >>> >>> >> Wasn't asking you to. What part of "a possibly fun exercise >> FOR THE GROUP" did you have trouble with? >> > The post was directed at me, asking 'me' to take > up your challenge. Nope; the post may have been a response to one of yours, but the phrase "exercise for the group" should've been more than adequate notice that I wasn't directing the question solely to you - unless, of course, you are under the impression that you speak for "the group." I am simply curious to see what most people here think they are saying when they use the term "socialist," and, if there are negative connotations there, what they think the opposite, presumably desirable, state might be. Bob M.
From: Robert Bolton on 3 Apr 2010 03:10 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:41:17 -0400, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:40:22 -0800, Robert Bolton ><robertboltondrop(a)gci.net> wrote: > >> >>I'd say socialism was the institution of activities intended to >>benefit the society. > > Wrong. While the coincidence of root words is vaguely >amusing, the word 'socialism' has a very specific meaning. It is not >the same as saying 'man is a social animal', nor is it the same as >'socializing'. > Social security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, welfare, and mandatory health insurance are not socialist programs? >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism > >Main Entry: so�cial�ism >Pronunciation: \'so-sh?-?li-z?m\ >Function: noun >Date: 1837 > >1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating >collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means >of production and distribution of goods > >2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private >property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of >production are owned and controlled by the state > >3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between >capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of >goods and pay according to work done > > >> >>Socialism has been around a long time. Here's a glimpse into not too >>distant past. Note that it was running rampant even in the Colonies. > > And it failed miserably there, and they threw the system out. Not really. Here's a link that's short enough to paste. It says that by the mid 1700s, relief programs represented the single largest expenditure in the cities of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. http://www.boisestate.edu/socwork/dhuff/us/chapters/chapter%202.htm Google 1700s Education - In 1787 (post revolution), a Black taxpayer petitioned the Massachusetts government to extend public schools to include Blacks. Meaning there were public schools in those days. Google 1800s Education - In 1827, Massachusetts required towns with populations in excess of 500 people to provide public high schools. In 1873, truant officers began enforcing attendance. These references are for modern times. Googling into Babylon and Old Testament discussion reveal there were social programs even then that provided some support for the elderly, widowed women, and poor children. Support for the elderly amounted to requiring children to aid their parents. In Ancient Greece, the wealthy were required to fund certain public celebrations. Support systems (as opposed to Socialism) have been around been around forever. Robert
From: Bob Myers on 6 Apr 2010 17:09
On 4/2/2010 3:08 PM, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > > Socialist = 'maximum government ownership and control of > everything'. > > Preferable system - maximum private ownership and control, > with minimal government relegated to appropriate tasks and areas of > interest. > OK, I can semi-accept those definitions, although I think I would prefer that the "socialist" one be based on societal/communal control of "everything" (actually, I think it would also be better if "everything" was a bit more specifically tied to economic/market items), rather than simply saying "government" - after all, there have been societies which would have to be called "socialist" but which also had little or no formal government (religious- based communes come to mind as an obvious example). But the above just exchanges one question for another. If "socialism" is bad on its face, and the "minimal government" form similarly preferable, then we're still left with the following to answer: just what ARE the "appropriate tasks and areas of interest" that SHOULD be covered by "government" of whatever form. Or, to perhaps get more specific - and again, here's an exercise for the group - which of the following are "appropriate" for the government to be concerned with (and why)? - - Maintaining a military (defense against outside aggressors, etc.) - Maintaining internal police forces at the local, state, and/or federal level. - Taking care of the construction of roads or similar transportation infrastructure. - Taking care of, or at least partially subsidizing, the construction and maintenance of utilities (water, sewage, power, etc.). - Providing a mail service or similar delivery/communications systems. - Provide for a common, public education system. - Providing for health insurance for the populace. - Establishing laws and regulations governing (fill in the blank, your choice). - Ensuring a minimum level of income. - Providing for economic support in the case of personal injury, illness, loss of employment, etc.. - Providing for the economic support of businesses in the case of analogous "emergencies". I'm sure the readership of the group can think of others, but this should get us started. And note that I'm not (yet, at least) saying that any of the above are or are not "appropriate" functions of government, myself. At this stage, I basically want to point out that this is not really a simple, clear-cut question, and that it's pretty darned hard to find any society that is not, to some degree, "socialist" with respect to one or more of these items. And hence, no one can really argue that "socialist" or "private" is, in and of themselves, necessary a good thing or a bad thing; in practice, we ALWAYS wind up with a blend of the two. Bob M. |