Socialism Destroys

[CLAX1911]

So you don’t like Nordic capitalism?

In the United States? No, I doubt it would work here.

 

[Anarchon]

Socialism Destroys

It's not just socialism. All forms of collectivism destroy. When the importance of individual liberty is discarded, supposedly for what someone decides is the good of others, there's no longer any point in pretending you're protecting anything. The only thing worth trying to protect is gone.

 

[Deuce]

It's not just socialism. All forms of collectivism destroy. When the importance of individual liberty is discarded, supposedly for what someone decides is the good of others, there's no longer any point in pretending you're protecting anything. The only thing worth trying to protect is gone.

So, what, privatize roads and national defense?

The good of the individual is the only thing worth protecting? The society as a whole is not?

 

[Redress]

So, what, privatize roads and national defense?

The good of the individual is the only thing worth protecting? The society as a whole is not?

It is even more stupid than that. A nation is a collectivist unit, so any nation destroys based on his reasoning. Only anarchy doesn't. You cannot build roads, because businesses are collectivist.

People using words they do not really understand....

 

[Deuce]

It is even more stupid than that. A nation is a collectivist unit, so any nation destroys based on his reasoning. Only anarchy doesn't. You cannot build roads, because businesses are collectivist.

People using words they do not really understand....

"Statist" is my other favorite, same issue. A statist is someone who thinks governments should exist.

 

[Anarchon]

So, what, privatize roads and national defense?

The good of the individual is the only thing worth protecting? The society as a whole is not?

Yes, privatize everything. Although, without collectivism, there are no nations, and therefore no national defense. And yes, individuals are the only thing worth protecting, and it's up to individuals to arrange that. Self-defense cannot be outsourced to a band of thugs that does't care for you, and think they own you. Society will be fine, however different. It will be defined by the individuals that make it up instead of a choice few that believe they have authority over others. Voluntary interaction means a better society than what you have today.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, privatize everything. Although, without collectivism, there are no nations, and therefore no national defense. And yes, individuals are the only thing worth protecting, and it's up to individuals to arrange that. Self-defense cannot be outsourced to a band of thugs that does't care for you, and think they own you. Society will be fine, however different. It will be defined by the individuals that make it up instead of a choice few that believe they have authority over others. Voluntary interaction means a better society than what you have today.

But as the scale rises, voluntary interaction requires coordination at higher levels. If only there were some method to organize that interaction in a manner that represents each individual! To somehow enforce the will of a large number of people simultaneously to further their goals more effectively.

Oh wait I just invented government.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, privatize everything. Although, without collectivism, there are no nations, and therefore no national defense. And yes, individuals are the only thing worth protecting, and it's up to individuals to arrange that. Self-defense cannot be outsourced to a band of thugs that does't care for you, and think they own you. Society will be fine, however different. It will be defined by the individuals that make it up instead of a choice few that believe they have authority over others. Voluntary interaction means a better society than what you have today.

So if someone hits hard times and can’t afford personal protection, that’s just tough?

 

[Anarchon]

So if someone hits hard times and can’t afford personal protection, that’s just tough?

First, that person would need to learn to be responsible for himself, to include being able to protect himself. Secondly, one can rely on loved ones/friends to voluntarily help, if for some reason that isn't enough. Thirdly, what a person can afford would be greatly affected by the lack of government. Without the government stealing 70 cents on every dollar, and the market now free, prices would plummet and people would generally become wealthier than they are today. They'd be able to afford private security (and everything else), in the rare case they needed it, much more easily than today. This general state of wealthiness would lower crime in general, as well.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Huh. Not much discussion of Canada or Sweden.

Or Denmark or most of Europe. Not much talk about the fact that almost every developed country has social safety net.

He won't define what "socialism" means because if he did he would find that every country is "socialist." It's all meaningless labels thrown around by people who lack real intelligence.

I might as well say, "Oh my!, capitalism is awful, look at Somalia and Haiti."

 

[ataraxia]

First, that person would need to learn to be responsible for himself, to include being able to protect himself. Secondly, one can rely on loved ones/friends to voluntarily help, if for some reason that isn't enough. Thirdly, what a person can afford would be greatly affected by the lack of government. Without the government stealing 70 cents on every dollar, and the market now free, prices would plummet and people would generally become wealthier than they are today. They'd be able to afford private security (and everything else), in the rare case they needed it, much more easily than today. This general state of wealthiness would lower crime in general, as well.

But don’t you think that even without government,and with lots of family support, people hit hard times?

A recent, fairly dramatic example is the recent nationalization of health care in Thailand. With that one move, they improved public health in their country by almost every metric, AND eliminated the most extreme poverty, AND improved the GDP as well- a triple whammy.

How?

It turns out, that when an uninsured person there got some catastrophic illness, they, and their entire extended family, were sinking into extreme poverty trying to pay for it. Once that burden was lifted, the extreme poverty rate went away completely. It also took the burden off the younger members of the family to allow them to continue their education, rather than just keep working to support the healthcare costs of the sick family members, allowing them to earn more in the long term and grow the economy even further. A Win-win-win for all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-healthcare-ucs-patients-government-political

 

[ataraxia]

Incidentally, similar to Thailand, unexpected catastrophic illness in uninsured individuals is the #1 cause of declarations of personal bankruptcy here in the US.

Things like a basic education and access to healthcare should not be commodities just left up to them whims of the free market. There is something fundamentally different about those things from, say, Rolex watches and BMW cars. They are, or at least should be, basic human rights.

That’s what they are listed as in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The US spearheaded, and signed, that document in 1948. It’s so ironic that now it’s the most vocal and aggressive opponent of it. It spread the ideas in the rest of the world, and now those ideals are under siege right back here at home. My how times change.

 

[JustHanging]

When Castro took power in Cuba the people cheered because they thought that everyone would be equal and would want for nothing.

But Castro's government failed to run the economy in a rational or efficient manner, and Castro discarded democracy, using the military to maintain power. Many rights and freedoms were lost because only with coercion by force could Castro's socialist ideal be maintained. So everyone suffered and continue to suffer, and most of them have no way to escape this hell.

A few have managed to escape. One survivor, describing conditions in present day Cuba, said, "You don't see any future. Everything is stagnated. Health care, education—nowadays they're in ruins."

"[People who support socialism] should wake up," says Gloria Alvarez. She is from Guatemala and says, "I've seen the impact of socialism. My father escaped Cuba. My grandfather suffered under Communists in Hungary before escaping."

[...]

"As a child, I was taught to mock socialism," she says, "but democratic socialism sounded OK. It made sense that government should take care of the economy. Then I watched democratic socialism fail in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. I learned that every time a country started down the socialist path, it fails."

https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/10/socialism-destroys

Yet Canada, a more socialist country, is a far better place to live than the USA. We have more freedom, better healthcare, better education, less violence, less hatred, and less incarceration. A number of our cities are considered the most livable in the world. A quick google provides:

The world's most liveable cities in 2018

Osaka, Japan.
Calgary, Canada.
Sydney, Australia.
Vancouver, Canada.
7. ( tie) Toronto, Canada.
7. ( tie) Tokyo, Japan.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Adelaide, Australia.


By golly, every one of those cities are in a more socialist country.

 

[Anarchon]

But don’t you think that even without government,and with lots of family support, people hit hard times?

A recent, fairly dramatic example is the recent nationalization of health care in Thailand. With that one move, they improved public health in their country by almost every metric, AND eliminated the most extreme poverty, AND improved the GDP as well- a triple whammy.

How?

It turns out, that when an uninsured person there got some catastrophic illness, they, and their entire extended family, were sinking into extreme poverty trying to pay for it. Once that burden was lifted, the extreme poverty rate went away completely. It also took the burden off the younger members of the family to allow them to continue their education, rather than just keep working to support the healthcare costs of the sick family members, allowing them to earn more in the long term and grow the economy even further. A Win-win-win for all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-healthcare-ucs-patients-government-political

Yes, there will always be hard times. But, with people no longer being fleeced by the government, they'll be free to give more voluntarily to those in need. As for your description of Thailand, you can't get something for nothing. You don't get socialized healthcare for all without it coming from somewhere. When it comes from government, it's inefficient and doomed for failure...that's besides the fact that it's all stolen from others at the point of a gun.

 

[iguanaman]

When Castro took power in Cuba the people cheered because they thought that everyone would be equal and would want for nothing.

But Castro's government failed to run the economy in a rational or efficient manner, and Castro discarded democracy, using the military to maintain power. Many rights and freedoms were lost because only with coercion by force could Castro's socialist ideal be maintained. So everyone suffered and continue to suffer, and most of them have no way to escape this hell.

A few have managed to escape. One survivor, describing conditions in present day Cuba, said, "You don't see any future. Everything is stagnated. Health care, education—nowadays they're in ruins."

"[People who support socialism] should wake up," says Gloria Alvarez. She is from Guatemala and says, "I've seen the impact of socialism. My father escaped Cuba. My grandfather suffered under Communists in Hungary before escaping."

[...]

"As a child, I was taught to mock socialism," she says, "but democratic socialism sounded OK. It made sense that government should take care of the economy. Then I watched democratic socialism fail in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. I learned that every time a country started down the socialist path, it fails."

https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/10/socialism-destroys

Every one of those nations was run by dictatorships like the ones your dear leader admires and complements.

 

[iguanaman]

Or Denmark or most of Europe. Not much talk about the fact that almost every developed country has social safety net.

He won't define what "socialism" means because if he did he would find that every country is "socialist." It's all meaningless labels thrown around by people who lack real intelligence.

I might as well say, "Oh my!, capitalism is awful, look at Somalia and Haiti."

Not only that but the countries he mentioned were all corrupt dictatorships which is far more applicable to their form of govt. than any ideology they claimed to follow.