The Truth About Socialism

[fskimospy]

The very first post I made in this thread was in response to this...

You should then look at my response to that post and then your response to it. That should inform you as to why your argument was bad.

I have not had people at work read what you wrong, people that ideologically are varied and many do not agree with me about a great many things. Different educational backgrounds. Hell, even the guy who graduated from Harvard 5 years ago agrees that my interpretation of what you said is correct.

You were trying to say that socialism cannot be bad if its part of the overall system which is good. I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you, but I feel more and more validated the more I have people read what you wrote.

I sincerely doubt you have had them read the entire thread, specifically my response to what you wrote that I previously referenced. You aren't getting anywhere with me because what you're arguing relies on a fundamentally stupid original reading of what I wrote followed by completely ignoring everything that followed it. It's irrational.

At this point I don't think you could agree with me and I don't know if it would matter. I got out of this what I wanted. I asked a question and got a response.

Not this crap again. Don't try to blame other people for your mistakes.

 

[glenn1]

Ah good, we've reached the part of the thread where glenn goes into a rage meltdown and starts ranting.

I'm not raging or ranting. I'm trying to explain to you why your side ("wealth inequality is bad and we need more socialistic solutions to address it") has been consistently losing the argument to the American voter for decades. Hell, even when your side wins the best you can do is slow down the ongoing drop in top marginal tax rates for a handful of years. Continuing to grieve about "trickle down" has been as pointless for your side as whining about the New Deal was for the GOP for decades, your side needs to get some new material.

 

[fskimospy]

I have, and I just did again. You still said that socialism is not inherently bad because even the US has a lot of it in it's economy.

I will suggest you go back and read it a third time. Especially focus on the post that I quoted to you that you quoted before making your rape analogy.

I will quote it again for you in case that makes it easier.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When all of the most successful economies includes a strong dose of socialism the logical conclusion is that socialism is not an inhibitor to a successful economy and is most likely a contributor to it.

I mean surely you wouldn't dispute that socializing certain aspects of society provides superior economic outcomes to privatizing them?

I would also encourage you to have your coworkers read it along with your response to it and see if they still agree with you. I strongly suspect they will not. There is no way a rational person with even below average reading comprehension would take someone saying 'the logical conclusion to X' means 'this must be true'. It is the logical conclusion based on the evidence available and a plausible causal mechanism.

This is once again why your rape analogy was so dumb, you took something without a plausible causal mechanism and tried to equate it to something with one. It was illogical.

 

[realibrad]

You should then look at my response to that post and then your response to it. That should inform you as to why your argument was bad.



I sincerely doubt you have had them read the entire thread, specifically my response to what you wrote that I previously referenced. You aren't getting anywhere with me because what you're arguing relies on a fundamentally stupid original reading of what I wrote followed by completely ignoring everything that followed it. It's irrational.



Not this crap again. Don't try to blame other people for your mistakes.

Yes, I have had them read the responses. Printed them out to give the full thing. They got to see what you said, what I said. I felt that was about as unbiased as I could reasonably make it. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. As I said, I got my question answered. There is not much else from me to gain by debating it with you. The only thing else I am concerned with is making sure that I have not pissed you off enough that the next time I have a question you will not respond.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not raging or ranting. I'm trying to explain to you why your side ("wealth inequality is bad and we need more socialistic solutions to address it") has been consistently losing the argument to the American voter for decades. Hell, even when your side wins the best you can do is slow down the ongoing drop in top marginal tax rates for a handful of years. Continuing to grieve about "trickle down" has been as pointless for your side as whining about the New Deal was for the GOP for decades, your side needs to get some new material.

I mean I don't think anyone actually believes the nonsense you just wrote right there. Speaking of who is winning the argument, the American public overwhelmingly agrees with me and that percentage is actually going up over time. You appear to be mistaking fundamental corruption in our system where the wealthy have far more input into legislation with some sort of losing ideological argument.

 

[realibrad]

I will suggest you go back and read it a third time. Especially focus on the post that I quoted to you that you quoted before making your rape analogy.

I will quote it again for you in case that makes it easier.



I would also encourage you to have your coworkers read it along with your response to it and see if they still agree with you. I strongly suspect they will not. There is no way a rational person with even below average reading comprehension would take someone saying 'the logical conclusion to X' means 'this must be true'. It is the logical conclusion based on the evidence available and a plausible causal mechanism.

This is once again why your rape analogy was so dumb, you took something without a plausible causal mechanism and tried to equate it to something with one. It was illogical.

Still wrong, because if the value capitalism brings is a larger net positive effect than the net negative effect of socialism, it could still be that socialism is not good. Its far more complex, but that is just one way to again show the argument is wrong.

Look, there is really no need to take this further. I may have asked you the question originally, but I got my answer elsewhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I have had them read the responses. Printed them out to give the full thing. They got to see what you said, what I said. I felt that was about as unbiased as I could reasonably make it. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. As I said, I got my question answered. There is not much else from me to gain by debating it with you. The only thing else I am concerned with is making sure that I have not pissed you off enough that the next time I have a question you will not respond.

Of course I would respond. I don't dislike you, it's just disappointing to see someone I otherwise respect say things that make me lose some of that respect for them. I hope you can do better next time.

 

[fskimospy]

Still wrong, because if the value capitalism brings is a larger net positive effect than the net negative effect of socialism, it could still be that socialism is not good. Its far more complex, but that is just one way to again show the argument is wrong.

Look, there is really no need to take this further. I may have asked you the question originally, but I got my answer elsewhere.

Wrong again. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive entities, they coexist in basically every society on earth and are often complimentary to one another.

Please stop digging.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Heh, yes you are completely wrong about that.

First of all.. a family making $500... a year? Where exactly is this family? Calcutta living over an open sewer? Even trying at it, there's no such thing in the US.

Lots of families in other parts of the world earn under 500 per year. Not any in the US that im aware of. I dont think I mentioned anything about "in the US."

 

[realibrad]

Wrong again. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive entities, they coexist in basically every society on earth and are often complimentary to one another.

Please stop digging.

They do not have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not going any further on this, there is literally nothing to gain now.

 

[fskimospy]

They do not have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not going any further on this, there is literally nothing to gain now.

Exactly. Thank you for ending the hole where you did.

 

[mect]

I have, and I just did again. You still said that socialism is not inherently bad because even the US has a lot of it in it's economy.

A major flaw with the analogy you're trying to make is that socialism is a tool that can be judged based on the merits of its outcomes whereas rape is simply wrong, regardless of the outcomes. Even if rape increased our GDP, it would still be wrong. On the other hand, ideally socialism would be judged purely based on its influence on the economy and society.

The other major flaw in your analogy is that you are trying to compare what I would consider a major economic variable with a minor economic variable. Its like trying to use the analogy that just because we consume water and are okay that doesn't prove that water is safe to drink. After all, we consume mercury and are still okay to. The difference is that water is a major component of our consumption. Mercury is a very minor component. Similarly, rape is currently relatively rare in American society. If people were constantly being raped, it would no longer be possible to say that we still have a good society in spite of rape. Socialism on the other hand is pervasive throughout our and other developed nations economies. The effects of a minor variable can easily be erased by all other variables, but the effects of a major variable are not as easily ignored. Based on the data, one could argue that socialism at the level employed by America and western Euorpean nations has no effect on the economy, or one could argue that it has a positive effect, but it would be hard to argue that something that significant could have a negative effect.

 

[realibrad]

A major flaw with the analogy you're trying to make is that socialism is a tool that can be judged based on the merits of its outcomes whereas rape is simply wrong, regardless of the outcomes. Even if rape increased our GDP, it would still be wrong. On the other hand, ideally socialism would be judged purely based on its influence on the economy and society.

The other major flaw in your analogy is that you are trying to compare what I would consider a major economic variable with a minor economic variable. Its like trying to use the analogy that just because we consume water and are okay that doesn't prove that water is safe to drink. After all, we consume mercury and are still okay to. The difference is that water is a major component of our consumption. Mercury is a very minor component. Similarly, rape is currently relatively rare in American society. If people were constantly being raped, it would no longer be possible to say that we still have a good society in spite of rape. Socialism on the other hand is pervasive throughout our and other developed nations economies. The effects of a minor variable can easily be erased by all other variables, but the effects of a major variable are not as easily ignored. Based on the data, one could argue that socialism at the level employed by America and western Euorpean nations has no effect on the economy, or one could argue that it has a positive effect, but it would be hard to argue that something that significant could have a negative effect.

No, its fine. The reason being is that the argument presented was that because successful economies have socialism in it, it must also be true that socialism is not inherently bad. That logically cannot follow based just off of that, because, if you use that logic, that individual parts of a larger system that is deemed good would, it would then follow that any parts that make up a larger system in other things would also mean they are good. So I took an extreme that nobody would question, rape, and did the same with it.

The reason I did this is because I wanted something that nobody could argue was neutral or good, and that we all agree is bad. If that thing, which is part of a larger system is bad, but the system good, then it disproves the overall logic first used. It does not prove that socialism is bad or good, it just says that the logic first used is wrong.

 

[glenn1]

A major flaw with the analogy you're trying to make is that socialism is a tool that can be judged based on the merits of its outcomes whereas rape is simply wrong, regardless of the outcomes. Even if rape increased our GDP, it would still be wrong. On the other hand, ideally socialism would be judged purely based on its influence on the economy and society.

The other major flaw in your analogy is that you are trying to compare what I would consider a major economic variable with a minor economic variable. Its like trying to use the analogy that just because we consume water and are okay that doesn't prove that water is safe to drink. After all, we consume mercury and are still okay to. The difference is that water is a major component of our consumption. Mercury is a very minor component. Similarly, rape is currently relatively rare in American society. If people were constantly being raped, it would no longer be possible to say that we still have a good society in spite of rape. Socialism on the other hand is pervasive throughout our and other developed nations economies. The effects of a minor variable can easily be erased by all other variables, but the effects of a major variable are not as easily ignored. Based on the data, one could argue that socialism at the level employed by America and western Euorpean nations has no effect on the economy, or one could argue that it has a positive effect, but it would be hard to argue that something that significant could have a negative effect.

You can make just as simple a moral argument against socialism as you can rape. Rape "benefits" the person who commits it while harming the other person who didn't consent to the act. Redistributionist social welfare like the left wing wants benefits the person who gets the transfer payment while harming the other person who didn't consent to it. In both cases the person giving benefits to the other person *could* consent to giving up something to help the other person but typically doesn't, for example look how much liberals recoil if you suggest private charity to help others instead of involuntary redistribution. Left wing folks would be the first to say it was evil to say rape was OK just because a majority of "democratic voters" approved it somewhere like Pakistan, yet are all for basically the same thing when it's a wallet being violated rather than a vagina.

 

[brandonbull]

Which is pretty much what liberal "socialists" want. It is a conservative strawman that liberals wants "Socialism" as you defined it.

I missed the nonliberals saying don't tax me bro because F the police, firemen, schools, bridges, roads, etc. The Anandtech "socialists" tend to think that taxing the crap out of people is going to redistribute wealth and nullify wealth inequality and isn't a government run trickle down economy. Increasing the taxes and costs to the people with the wealth is only going to be passed off to the have-nots.

 

[mect]

You can make just as simple a moral argument against socialism as you can rape. Rape "benefits" the person who commits it while harming the other person who didn't consent to the act. Redistributionist social welfare like the left wing wants benefits the person who gets the transfer payment while harming the other person who didn't consent to it. In both cases the person giving benefits to the other person *could* consent to giving up something to help the other person but typically doesn't, for example look how much liberals recoil if you suggest private charity to help others instead of involuntary redistribution. Left wing folks would be the first to say it was evil to say rape was OK just because a majority of "democratic voters" approved it somewhere like Pakistan, yet are all for basically the same thing when it's a wallet being violated rather than a vagina.

Bullshit. Wealth redistribution prevents accumulation of wealth which correlates to accumulation of power. A private party deal where one party has all the power is much more comparable to rape than redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is more comparable to having a police department which doesn't permit a powerful individual from raping someone through the pooling of societal resources.

 

[mect]

The reason I did this is because I wanted something that nobody could argue was neutral or good, and that we all agree is bad. If that thing, which is part of a larger system is bad, but the system good, then it disproves the overall logic first used. It does not prove that socialism is bad or good, it just says that the logic first used is wrong.

Socialism is a defining characteristic of western economies. Rape is not a defining characteristic of society. If rape was as prevalent in our cultures as socialism (ie the entire population is impacted by it on a daily basis), we could not have a good society.

 

[fskimospy]

No, its fine. The reason being is that the argument presented was that because successful economies have socialism in it, it must also be true that socialism is not inherently bad. That logically cannot follow based just off of that, because, if you use that logic, that individual parts of a larger system that is deemed good would, it would then follow that any parts that make up a larger system in other things would also mean they are good. So I took an extreme that nobody would question, rape, and did the same with it.

The reason I did this is because I wanted something that nobody could argue was neutral or good, and that we all agree is bad. If that thing, which is part of a larger system is bad, but the system good, then it disproves the overall logic first used. It does not prove that socialism is bad or good, it just says that the logic first used is wrong.

One is plausibly related to the operation of the economy and the other is not.

You started digging again. Please stop.

 

[glenn1]

Bullshit. Wealth redistribution prevents accumulation of wealth which correlates to accumulation of power. A private party deal where one party has all the power is much more comparable to rape than redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is more comparable to having a police department which doesn't permit a powerful individual from raping someone through the pooling of societal resources.

So undertaxing the rich is functionally equivalent to rape in your mind. Got it.

 

[mect]

So undertaxing the rich is functionally equivalent to rape in your mind. Got it.

No, undertaxing the rich is functionally equivalent to allowing the rich to financially rape us. Reading comprehension helps.

 

[realibrad]

Socialism is a defining characteristic of western economies. Rape is not a defining characteristic of society. If rape was as prevalent in our cultures as socialism (ie the entire population is impacted by it on a daily basis), we could not have a good society.

Defining, that might be a bit much considering that the vast majority of activity is not socialist.

It does not change that the argument is that if the system is good, then the parts that make it up all must be good. You are not looking at the abstraction of the argument.

 

[realibrad]

One is plausibly related to the operation of the economy and the other is not.

You started digging again. Please stop.

That is irrelevant to the point.

 

[mect]

Defining, that might be a bit much considering that the vast majority of activity is not socialist.

It does not change that the argument is that if the system is good, then the parts that make it up all must be good. You are not looking at the abstraction of the argument.

That's because the abstraction of the argument is pedantic and silly. No one argued that if a system is good that all the parts that make up the system must also be good. The argument was made that because the overall system was good, a specific part that plays a significant roll in the function of the system must also be good.

Edit:
As for whether it is to much to define socialism as a significant aspect of western economies, considering our roads, our energy infrastructure, our utilities, our education systems, and to some extent our healthcare are all socialized to some degree or other, I don't think it is too much to consider socialism a significant part of our economies.

 

[fskimospy]

That is irrelevant to the point.

It most certainly is not. Your entire point rests on exactly this willful refusal to attempt to understand very plain written communication.

 

[jackstar7]

Defining, that might be a bit much considering that the vast majority of activity is not socialist.

How do you reach that conclusion?