View Poll Results: Choose three social programs(3 only)

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Universal Healthcare

    15 62.50%
  • Education/k-12 + 4 years higher ed

    16 66.67%
  • Emergency welfare/medical/unemployment benefits

    9 37.50%
  • Social Security/medical for elderly/retired

    12 50.00%
  • Disability/medical services and benefits

    9 37.50%
  • Veterans/medical services and benefits

    10 41.67%
  • Planned Parenthood services

    5 20.83%
  • Arts&Entertainment/PBS funding

    4 16.67%
  • Emergency corporate/economy bailout fund

    4 16.67%
  • Illegal Alien emergency assistance and services

    1 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

  1. #21
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick2253 View Post
    Why do roads and infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism? The logic for nationalizing the construction and management of infrastructure is exactly the same for all the other things on that list, and they just as similarly serve a social function. The idea in all of these cases is that nationalizing service X changes the distribution of service X from one that favors the individual to one that favors the greater good. Roads and infrastructure as we deal with them in this country seem to serve exactly that purpose: instead of only benefiting those with the ability to pay, they benefit all at the cost of those with the ability to pay.
    They know they use those things and they're afraid of the S word.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    How about the police that patrol your neighborhood? Let's get rid of them.
    Police and courts existed before socialist ideology came together and they deal directly with the purpose of government.

  3. #23
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,876

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    I guess the idea of only choosing 3 is to let the others fall by the wayside. It's not going to happen. I chose 8. Restricted multiple choice is fascism.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,630

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    The term 'common good' is socialist. That some want to limit socialism to the most modern form doesn't make that concept true.

    Capitalism would have private security forces, private intel sources, private healthcare with private emergency services. Some counties are trying to force people to pay a fee if the emergency services are called by a non county resident.

    Socialism is the common good is paid for by a pool of resources vs capitalism which believe the for profit sector should run things most of us consider essential services.

    Limiting the services to three is not realistic. More to the point is where does the greater good end and individual responsibility take over.

  5. #25
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick2253 View Post
    Why do roads and infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism? The logic for nationalizing the construction and management of infrastructure is exactly the same for all the other things on that list, and they just as similarly serve a social function. The idea in all of these cases is that nationalizing service X changes the distribution of service X from one that favors the individual to one that favors the greater good. Roads and infrastructure as we deal with them in this country seem to serve exactly that purpose: instead of only benefiting those with the ability to pay, they benefit all at the cost of those with the ability to pay.
    Well under your reasoning then the military is a Socialist venture as well. Or the government in general is Socialist under the generalized reasoning that you stated. I mean the Government serves the greater good of society a lot more than the individual good of the individual. Plus there are many private roads in America. Even the National Highway System is not forced on States that do not want to join.
    National Highway System (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe system includes 4% of the nation's roads, but carries more than 40% of all highway traffic, 75% of heavy truck traffic, and 90% of tourist traffic.[4] All urban areas with a population of over 50,000 and about 90% of America's population live within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the network,[4] which is the longest in the world.[5]
    So only 4% of our road system in the US is Nationalized. So what exactly is the other 96% of our road system?

    Something can be nationalized yet not be socialistic. Our national Olympic teams are not a form of Socialism. Infrastructure of an country can be nationalized but that does not make the countries infrastructure Socialism. As shown in Nazi Germany nationalizing can be fascism. But nationalizing can also just be nationalizing not a description as an element of Socialism or fascism. So infrastructure that has been nationalized is not necessarily anything other than nationalized unless accompanied by other elements.

    But all that does not mean that I support further nationalizing of anything.

  6. #26
    Advisor Nick2253's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Last Seen
    05-15-12 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    321

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Well under your reasoning then the military is a Socialist venture as well. Or the government in general is Socialist under the generalized reasoning that you stated. I mean the Government serves the greater good of society a lot more than the individual good of the individual.
    That's exactly my point. A purely capitalistic society could only exist under anarchy, but anarchy is no guarantee of capitalism. Taxes are socialism, pure and simple: they are all about taking from you according to your ability, and then that money is subsequently paid out according to your need. Since our government requires taxation, then yes, it's socialist. This is simply a fact under the definition we are adhering to: anything between pure capitalism and pure communism is socialism. I'm not passing judgement, since I don't think "socialism" is some closet boogyman, but any modern form of government is ultimately socialist.

    Plus there are many private roads in America. Even the National Highway System is not forced on States that do not want to join.

    So only 4% of our road system in the US is Nationalized. So what exactly is the other 96% of our road system?
    If anything, this is a red herring. The other 96% of our road system is build and managed by the states. Whether or not it's a state or the federal government that does this is irrelevant. And the fact that not all roads and infrastructure development is public does not mean that that service is not socialistic. Ultimately, any government involvement in a service is socialism under our definition.

    Something can be nationalized yet not be socialistic.
    False.

    Our national Olympic teams are not a form of Socialism.
    Yes they are. According to our definition of Socialism, anything between Capitalism and Communism is socialism. As soon as a government funded by a "from each according to ability, to each according to need" mentality provides any service, or aid to a service, then you are no longer in capitalism. The fact that the US government provides any kind of funding to the Olympic team makes it socialism. In anticipation of another argument, yes, the Olympic team is also a form of social service: while not immediately practical like fire or police, the Olympic team provides entertainment and national pride, which is just as much a social service.

    Infrastructure of an country can be nationalized but that does not make the countries infrastructure Socialism. As shown in Nazi Germany nationalizing can be fascism.
    Fascism and socialism do not describe the same aspects of political philosophy. Fascism inherently requires socialism. A key tenet of Fascism is that the state is willing and able to take control of an industry for the benefit of the national interests (basically the same conclusion as Communism, just different reasoning).

    But nationalizing can also just be nationalizing not a description as an element of Socialism or fascism. So infrastructure that has been nationalized is not necessarily anything other than nationalized unless accompanied by other elements.
    From Wikipedia: "Nationalization is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state."
    You cannot have nationalization without socialization. By a government taking control of some industry or asset, there is no longer pure capitalism, and socialism is then in effect.

    But all that does not mean that I support further nationalizing of anything.
    Agreed

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Universal healthcare, dissablity and emergency welfare/medical care.

    I would have gone with your education packet over disability, but I do not agree with only aiding up until 4 years after high school. Grad school is FAR more expensive and those students could use aid as well. Why spend money on some party kid majoring in Gaelic literature when you can use that money on a med/pharmacy/law/PhD student?
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,084

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. Itīs in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. Itīs in our best interest for children to have access to education. Itīs in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I donīt understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.

    I guess Iīm just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. Itīs in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. Itīs in our best interest for children to have access to education. Itīs in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I donīt understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.

    I guess Iīm just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.
    People are against them because we have to pay for it. Those things as you've mentioned are in our best interest, but is that at the expense of higher taxes, more government power and government spending?

    Many of these things should be personal responsibility and not government areas of power.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #30
    Advisor Nick2253's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Last Seen
    05-15-12 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    321

    Re: Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. Itīs in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. Itīs in our best interest for children to have access to education. Itīs in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I donīt understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.
    This is exactly the same line of thought that brought us Communism. And you're right, if we could provide all those services, it would be in the best interest of mankind. The problem is that these services have an opportunity cost. As soon as you start paying government for a service, you have less money to pay the private sector for a service. History has shown that, time and time again, the private sector is a much more efficient steward of our money, and so by pushing services away from the private sector onto the government (while you may get more coverage), you get far less bang for your buck.

    I guess Iīm just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.
    Veiled insults don't really help your cause.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •