• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

Ethereal said:
Like I said, "socialized" is not the same thing as "socialist".
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but Mr. V has an extremely inaccurate understanding of what socialism is. In terms of how an operation is run, the VA, military, roads, police etc are socialist as the government owns the means of production. Calling Obamacare which isn't technically socialist, socialist at the same time defending operations which are by very operation, socialist is pretty ignorant.

And it's incredibly difficult to know what the hell Navy is actually talking about.

And frankly, medicine is already placed under government control. Between Medicare and Medicaid, there's not that much left for the private sector. And Obamacare does not take control away from private insurers in that market.
 
Ethereal said:
I know what socialism is.
Click to expand...

Obviously not considering you're arguing that if it is in the constitution, it is not socialist.

After the state seizes the means of production it redistributes the wealth amongst the people until such a time when class distinctions have dissolved, at which point, the means of production are reduced to the collective who operate them via workers councils and direct democracy.
Click to expand...

In the context of the military various equivalent facets of socialism can be seen, from a central planning authority to controlled means of production. The redistribution of wealth IMO comes in the form of the government taxing to fund the military. But then again, none of those things you noted constitute central pillars of socialism as it is practiced. I think the fact that the military is not a direct democracy just reinforces how socialist it is. Very few "socialist" countries are democracies. Can't think of any actually.

I'm just using the classical definition of socialism as espoused by Marx and Engels.
Click to expand...

You should read Lenin. He goes deeper into what is 'socialism' than Marx and Engels. Then again I think he was smarter than both of those guys put together. Marx and Engels laid the blueprint for socialism. Lenin was really the guy who expanded on it.

Socialism necessarily involves the state-seizure of private property. The state cannot seize something when it is prescribed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true. Whether the constitution prescribes something or not, does not determine whether a given institution socialist. The U.S. seizes tax money to fund the military. Would you consider money to be private property?
 
obvious Child said:
Perhaps not, but Mr. V has an extremely inaccurate understanding of what socialism is. In terms of how an operation is run, the VA, military, roads, police etc are socialist as the government owns the means of production.
Click to expand...

Except that is an incomplete definition of socialism. Socialism is the state seizure of the means of production. It has nothing to do with drafting a Constitution and enumerating government powers, such as the military.

Calling Obamacare which isn't technically socialist, socialist at the same time defending operations which are by very operation, socialist is pretty ignorant.
Click to expand...

One could argue that Obamacare is the forced redistribution of wealth, which is an element of Marxist-socialism.

And it's incredibly difficult to know what the hell Navy is actually talking about.

And frankly, medicine is already placed under government control. Between Medicare and Medicaid, there's not that much left for the private sector. And Obamacare does not take control away from private insurers in that market.
Click to expand...

Medicine is not under government control, but it certainly isn't free either. We should move in the free direction...
 
Blackdog said:
Having a military is no more "socialism" than is having a governing body.

Aspects of governments such as a military for protection is as much a capitalist idea as socialist as communist. It is simply a necessary part of any society that becomes large enough to need protection from enemy's foreign or even domestic.

Besides all forms of Democracy involve some form of socialism.
Click to expand...

Well I guess some forms of socialism are evil and immoral. Some are not. :shrug:
 
Ethereal said:
Except that is an incomplete definition of socialism. Socialism is the state seizure of the means of production.
Click to expand...

Which is done by grabbing land and taxing people, both of which constitute property, land and money. You don't pay your property tax enough and the state will seize it and sell it at auction and use the tax to fund schools and cops which it dictates the policies to.

It has nothing to do with drafting a Constitution and enumerating government powers, such as the military.
Click to expand...

The fact that the COTUS says it's okay is irrelevant. Taking land to build roads and schools is seizure. Along with taxation. As Wiseone said, all functioning countries need some level of socialism to function. I don't disagree with him. Look at the countries who don't have it: Somalia.

One could argue that Obamacare is the forced redistribution of wealth, which is an element of Marxist-socialism.
Click to expand...

In the same fashion one could argue the military is the forced redistribution of wealth, which is an element of Marxist-socialism. The government takes my money to give to a big corporation to buy weapons which it dictates to the corporation and sometimes builds itself.

Medicine is not under government control, but it certainly isn't free either. We should move in the free direction...
Click to expand...

A significant portion of it already is.
 
Hatuey said:
Obviously not considering you're arguing that if it is in the constitution, it is not socialist.
Click to expand...

If something is lawfully within the government's purview, how can it be the forced redistribution of wealth?

In the context of the military various equivalent facets of socialism can be seen, from a central planning authority to controlled means of production. The redistribution of wealth IMO comes in the form of the government taxing to fund the military. But then again, none of those things you noted constitute central pillars of socialism as it is practiced. I think the fact that the military is not a direct democracy just reinforces how socialist it is. Very few "socialist" countries are democracies. Can't think of any actually.
Click to expand...

It has some facets of socialism, yes, but it lacks the coercive underpinnings of socialist theory.

You should read Lenin. He goes deeper into what is 'socialism' than Marx and Engels. Then again I think he was smarter than both of those guys put together. Marx and Engels laid the blueprint for socialism. Lenin was really the guy who expanded on it.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll certainly give him a look but I don't think he eschews the basics of socialism; that is, the state seizure of the means of production and bourgeois property.

This is not entirely true. Whether the constitution prescribes something or not, does not determine whether a given institution socialist. The U.S. seizes tax money to fund the military. Would you consider money to be private property?
Click to expand...

The Constitution removes the coercive element from government and taxation, which is a necessary element of socialism.
 
obvious Child said:
Which is done by grabbing land and taxing people, both of which constitute property, land and money. You don't pay your property tax enough and the state will seize it and sell it at auction and use the tax to fund schools and cops which it dictates the policies to.

The fact that the COTUS says it's okay is irrelevant. Taking land to build roads and schools is seizure. Along with taxation. As Wiseone said, all functioning countries need some level of socialism to function. I don't disagree with him. Look at the countries who don't have it: Somalia.
Click to expand...

American citizens consent to be governed by the Constitution. How can the state seize something when the people have already consented to it?

In the same fashion one could argue the military is the forced redistribution of wealth, which is an element of Marxist-socialism. The government takes my money to give to a big corporation to buy weapons which it dictates to the corporation and sometimes builds itself.
Click to expand...

But it's not the forced redistribution of wealth, which is the more precise descriptor of Marxist-socialism.
 
Ethereal said:
If something is lawfully within the government's purview, how can it be the forced redistribution of wealth?
Click to expand...

What happens if you refuse to pay taxes?
 
Hatuey said:
What happens if you refuse to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

Of course, the government will come get you, but, in a Constitutional Republic, you would have no legal or moral standing. This nation was created by the US Constitution, and Americans citizens enter into a social contract which requires obedience to said Constitution. Surely you can see the difference between something which is Constitutional and something which is not?
 
Moderator's Warning:
There's been enough blatant trolling in this thread for a whole chan. This needs to stop now.
 
Ethereal said:
Of course, the government will come get you, but, in a Constitutional Republic, you would have no legal or moral standing. This nation was created by the US Constitution, and Americans citizens enter into a social contract which requires obedience to said Constitution. Surely you can see the difference between something which is Constitutional and something which is not?
Click to expand...

What I do not see is how you make the leap that if something is constitutionally allowed, it is not socialist. The government through the constitution is in charge of ensuring the welfare of the United States. It is also, once again through the Constitution, allowed to tax the populace to this means. Would you say that this redistribution of wealth is not socialist because it is not forced? That the government doesn't have to come to your house at gun point and tell you to give them money seems to be just a trivial detail in the discussion.
 
The intent of the Federal health care legisaltion is to provide cov erage to the poor and temporarily unemployed, who are currently largely without health care.

The Western Market economy depends and lay-offs and downturns in the economy. So people without health insurance is a product of Capitalism.

Some employers are looking for low wage workers, with a low level of skills, for which Health insurance would put the at a competitive disadvantage. So the general idea of health care as Socialism seems incorrect. Intgervention in the economy to make the market work better for everyone, seems more like Capitalism to me.

Socialism might be nationalizing an industry that can function independently of government and charity. Like Air Lines and Diamons

The Power of Socialization: Engaging the Diamond Industry in the Kimberley Process


Nationalizing a TV or newpaper is socialism, because there is no real public need provided by TV and Newpapers.

Republicans say the US health care system works great. It works for he middle and upper class. If you did not finish high school, and work Fast Food, health care is a challenge if you get sick.

I see Health care as Reparations. Many of the individuals who do not have health care in the US, are descendants of slaves, and other forced laborers who were forcibly brought to the US. It was common practice to impress able bodied men into service on merchant and War vessels, before the Civil War.

War 1812, War Hawks, Free Trade, Free Land, Sailors? Rights, Impressed sailors, Battle of Lake Erie, Commodore O. Perry, Battle of Thames, Isaac Chauncey, William Harrison


..
 
Ethereal said:
If something is lawfully within the government's purview, how can it be the forced redistribution of wealth?
Click to expand...
It's forced because if I decide to not pay the part of my taxes that go to the military, some nice guys in uniforms will come and remove my right to liberty, if I go long enough without paying. By your logic, if congress passes a health care bill, the president signs it, and the courts uphold it, it's not socialized. Or if we amended the constitution to allow a NHS, it's not socialized

It has some facets of socialism, yes, but it lacks the coercive underpinnings of socialist theory.
Click to expand...
You mean like me being arrested if I don't pay my taxes for the military, or if the government decides they need me in the military and I don't want to go?

Okay, I'll certainly give him a look but I don't think he eschews the basics of socialism; that is, the state seizure of the means of production and bourgeois property.
Click to expand...

Technically, no "means of production" are being seized in the health care bill, so its not socialist, right?
 
hazlnut said:
I guess Navy is still not reading his own articles.............



Way to go, political posturing with a symbolic and legally unfounded action.........

And Way Go Navy Pride.........
Click to expand...

Not if the federal law itself is unconstitutional because it infringes on the COnstitutional perogatives of the States...
 
Hatuey said:
And where in that definition did you see anything about producing 'a product'? I stated what the military produces.It produces a service. The service? National defence. And it is controlled and owned by the state. Thus making it socialist. With what part of that do you disagree?
Click to expand...

And unlike health care, national defense is a responsibility granted the national government by the Constitution.
 
Ethereal said:
Socialism is a form of forced wealth redistribution. Since Americans consent to be governed by the Constitution, there is nothing socialist about the military, as it prescribed by law.
Click to expand...

How in the world did we consent? As far as I can tell, the only people who consent are those who immigrate from another country and acquire citizenship. The rest of us were simply born here.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
How in the world did we consent? As far as I can tell, the only people who consent are those who immigrate from another country and acquire citizenship. The rest of us were simply born here.
Click to expand...

Constitution 101. It's the job of the federal government to build us a bad-ass military.

I suggest you argue it with James Madison in the afterlife, because this is basic stuff not worthy of discussion here. Hate the military on your own time.
 
Erod said:
Constitution 101. It's the job of the federal government to build us a bad-ass military.

I suggest you argue it with James Madison in the afterlife, because this is basic stuff not worthy of discussion here. Hate the military on your own time.
Click to expand...

I don't care what any of the founding fathers said. The simple fact is that I have sworn no oath, signed no document, etc of my own free will (The pledge of allegiance doesn't count since I was a minor and compliance was forced pretty harshly by the school system). The only people that have are immigrants, the military (thanks for reminding me Erod), people who take an oath of office, etc.

I follow the laws because the police will put me in jail if I don't, but I never agreed to anything.

What does this have to do with hating the military, I was not responding to that part of Ethereal's post (which it also illogical, but not worth pointing out)? Personally, I think having a military is a good thing for any nation to have.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I don't care what any of the founding fathers said. The simple fact is that I have sworn no oath, signed no document, etc of my own free will (The pledge of allegiance doesn't count since I was a minor and it was enforced by the school system). The only people that have are immigrants, the military (thanks for reminding me Erod), Judges, Presidents, etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, unless you renounce your citizenship and repatriate, or get deported and expatriated then it is assumed you accept the social contract for the way it was written. The policies that our beloved idiots in congress have stuck us with over the last 100 years or so are not exactly part of the deal, however the founding fathers laid out the initial contract, those who would either change it by fiat(including overreaching policy) or by flat out sidestepping the promise(constitution) are in fact breaking the contract and thus.......not honoring their part of the deal they accepted simply by remaining in the society of their birth.
 
megaprogman said:
I don't care what any of the founding fathers said. The simple fact is that I have sworn no oath, signed no document, etc of my own free will (The pledge of allegiance doesn't count since I was a minor and compliance was forced pretty harshly by the school system). The only people that have are immigrants, the military (thanks for reminding me Erod), people who take an oath of office, etc.

I follow the laws because the police will put me in jail if I don't, but I never agreed to anything.

What does this have to do with hating the military, I was not responding to that part of Ethereal's post (which it also illogical, but not worth pointing out)? Personally, I think having a military is a good thing for any nation to have.
Click to expand...

OK, my apologies for the last part.

The constititution is what it is. It is designed to protect your freedoms and liberties, and otherwise, get the government the hell out of your way.

It is genius, and it should not be changed to satisfy 300 million different people in 300 million different ways.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, unless you renounce your citizenship and repatriate, or get deported and expatriated then it is assumed you accept the social contract for the way it was written. The policies that our beloved idiots in congress have stuck us with over the last 100 years or so are not exactly part of the deal, however the founding fathers laid out the initial contract, those who would either change it by fiat(including overreaching policy) or by flat out sidestepping the promise(constitution) are in fact breaking the contract and thus.......not honoring their part of the deal they accepted simply by remaining in the society of their birth.
Click to expand...

I accept the parts I like and I don't accept the parts I wish to change and to be honestly, I suspect most people feel that way (I couldn't find any polling on it though, so I don't know for sure). However, as a caveat, any parts I do wish to change, I wish to change in a lawful manner as proscribed by our legal system.

The problem with emigrating though is that often people do not have the means to do it and another country may not accept them. This would make them stuck and without a home. Facing this possibility, many do not do anything to change their lives because there is some risk. I don't fault the people who do this for those reasons. (Not that I want to leave, but I am trying to be realistic and not ideological about it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom