socialism

[Traveler]

The big flaw of socialism that no one seems to ever talk about is the thought that social justice demands a one size fits all which is the ideological basis of socialism.  Though socialism seems just; it is both unfair and unreasonable.  Maybe this is the reason behind agency.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

The big flaw of socialism that no one seems to ever talk about is the thought that social justice demands a one size fits all which is the ideological basis of socialism.  Though socialism seems just; it is both unfair and unreasonable.  Maybe this is the reason behind agency.

 

The Traveler

I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist exactly, but I've grown up in a society which is more socialist than the USA, so a lot of "socialist" ideas seem like common sense to me. But of course, that's my upbringing talking.

Socialized healthcare for example: in the States, a great many people moan about how unfair it is that well-to-do people should be forced to pay the bulk of the cost of healthcare which will be made available to poor people, who couldn't otherwise afford it. But very few of these same people complain about paying pro rata for policing, education, prisons, the army, navy, air force, coast guard, public libraries, the fire service and the law courts - things which exist for the benefit of the rich AND the poor.

No rich person ever says: "O poor pitiful me, having to pay my tax dollars* for the police to investigate a break-in at my poor neighbour's tumble-down, rat-infested hovel, when I'm so lucky that my gold-plated mansion has never been burgled." 

Our system (which some would label "socialist") merely adds healthcare to that already long list of publicly funded services which all but the loony-extreme Republican would defend. And in the UK this been accepted for many years: even Margaret Thatcher - the least socialist prime minister we've had in recent history - never suggested abolishing the NHS, any more than she suggested "defunding the police".

I presented this argument on this very forum about 10 years ago, to be rebutted with the suggestion that "policing, education...blah blah blah...etc. etc." are necessary for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that public healthcare (for some inarticulable reason) is not.

* Why is it Americans pay "taxes" for things they approve of, and "tax dollars" for things they don't? 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jamie123

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist exactly, but I've grown up in a society which is more socialist than the USA, so a lot of "socialist" ideas seem like common sense to me. But of course, that's my upbringing talking.

Socialized healthcare for example: in the States, a great many people moan about how unfair it is that well-to-do people should be forced to pay the bulk of the cost of healthcare which will be made available to poor people, who couldn't otherwise afford it. But very few of these same people complain about paying pro rata for policing, education, prisons, the army, navy, air force, coast guard, public libraries, the fire service and the law courts - things which exist for the benefit of the rich AND the poor.

No rich person ever says: "O poor pitiful me, having to pay my tax dollars* for the police to investigate a break-in at my poor neighbour's tumble-down, rat-infested hovel, when I'm so lucky that my gold-plated mansion has never been burgled." 

Our system (which some would label "socialist") merely adds healthcare to that already long list of publicly funded services which all but the loony-extreme Republican would defend. And in the UK this been accepted for many years: even Margaret Thatcher - the least socialist prime minister we've had in recent history - never suggested abolishing the NHS, any more than she suggested "defunding the police".

I presented this argument on this very forum about 10 years ago, to be rebutted with the suggestion that "policing, education...blah blah blah...etc. etc." are necessary for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that public healthcare (for some inarticulable reason) is not.

* Why is it Americans pay "taxes" for things they approve of, and "tax dollars" for things they don't? 

Must of us are also against paying for education.

But I actually don’t have a great argument for your observations. I think the argument stems on public goods and some other economic terminology I cannot remember.

My qualm is why should I pay for a smokers lung replacement surgery? And why should I expect someone else to pay for my insulin because I developed diabetes due to my unhealthy eating habits.  I would be ok with a socialized medical system as long as it is in some sort of tier system where you only pay for the health care of others in your own health level.
 

ie

tier 1: healthy, exercise regularity, maintain certain BMI, etc.

tier 2: certain BMI and activity level. 

tier 3: obese, smokers, alcoholics, 

This would incentivize healthy living and make for a better country.

That being said, this can be done better in a free market than by a government.

Two other issue with socialism is that (1) it takes away an amount of personal responsibility. It tries to force a “Christ like” approach to everything but just results in entitlement. (2) It also puts a lot of services that need individual approaches in the hands of a massive organization.
 

Capitalism has the opposing problem. For capitalism to bless everyone, it requires everyone to be genuinely Christlike and looking after their neighbor. 
 

At the end of the day, our biggest issue with socialism is that it blesses the lazy more than the industrious while Capitalism blesses the industrious more than the lazy. What kind of country do we want?

Edited August 5, 2020 by Fether

[Jamie123]

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

My qualm is why should I pay for a smokers lung replacement surgery? And why should I expect someone else to pay for my insulin because I developed diabetes due to my unhealthy eating habits.

This is is (to my mind) the main point in favour of the US approach: it adds an extra incentive to taking individual responsibility for your health. "Don't look after yourself, and you will not only be sick but bankrupt!"

Does this work though? Sadly not. Many a bluecollar American is smoking his or her way to lung replacement, with no plan of how they're going to afford it.

But all the same, given the choice I'd still rather be the rich healthy person than the poor sick one, even if the former has to pay most of the latter's medical bills.

[Fether]

I’ve been thinking a bit about this and I think I have arrived to a conclusion on your criticism on capitalists, and I imagine most other capitalists would agree with me.

1) A nation’s purpose is to uphold the ideals of its people and that cannot be done without a military, police, court, and prison system. Because of that, we are all for those taxes. If we tried to privatize this, we would have 100+ mini countries around the US.

2) I am fine paying taxes on things like fire services, libraries, and road work because they support my ideals. HOWEVER, should a bill get passed saying that these would all now be privatized or even left to counties or cities, I would be pretty dang excited.
It would then be left the to individual communities to decide how they want to support their own neighborhoods. The trash people that don’t want to take care of their communities likely won’t move to the nicer communities and bring them down. And the people who value their country and value education and hard work won’t be forced to support communities of people who don’t value education and hard work.

3) I am completely against paying taxes for education and health care. And I imagine most capitalists are with me on this. If education was privatized, we could pick what kind of education we wanted for our children and what university to attend. We wouldn’t be forced to learn about agenda based topics.

Same with healthcare. The free market would provide cheaper health options for those that want to be healthy and more expensive for those that don’t want to be healthy.

 

SIDE NOTES:

1) It has occurred to me more and more that the American ideals are changing. Many today do not want what the founding fathers wanted and built, and unfortunately the constitution and government is set up in such a way to allow the changes that are desired.

2) There are a lot of exceptions that capitalist and socialist governments cannot take in account for.

For example in healthcare, look at a person with some medical issue that prevents physical exercise and they have live their life in an unhealthy way due to their physical capabilities. In a capitalist world, they rely on the good will of their community to take care of them. In a socialist society, everyone is forced to help them.

Here is the problem with both. For capitalism, if this person lives in a selfish community and has little or no family, there is nothing they can do and they are left to themselves. In a socialist society, There is no one that can go door to door and decide who gets what benefits and we will find communities of people who are perfectly healthy and able to work, but choose not to and fake disability in order to get government hand out. I served in an area on my mission where I saw this every day, perfectly able men who Sat at home angry because the government was lye on getting their monthly check to them.

 

TLDR:

government should only be responsibly for protecting the nations ideals through military, police, courts, prisons. Everything else should be privatized for left to individual states/counties.

Socialism is wasteful and pulls everyone to middle class

Capitalism is efficient, but brutal if you do t live in a righteous community.

[Jamie123]

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ve been thinking a bit about this and I think I have arrived to a conclusion on your criticism on capitalists, and I imagine most other capitalists would agree with me.

You make some good points - I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, and you're necessarily wrong. Our perspective is coloured by what we've been conditioned to consider "normal" - which is why debate like this is important to help us think "out of the box".

I would say this though in response to:

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

3) I am completely against paying taxes for education ... If education was privatized, we could pick what kind of education we wanted for our children and what university to attend. We wouldn’t be forced to learn about agenda based topics.

You certainly would get to "pick" if you had the money. And even now people still get to pick Eton or Harrow or Winchester or Malvern or Westminster or Rugby or Charterhouse...etc. etc... for their kids' education if they can afford the fees. By making all schools fee-paying you'd certainly offer a wealth of "choice" to the rich, at the expense of giving no choice whatsoever to the poor. And for the poorest, the one choice available would be "no school at all". We'd be back to Oliver Twist times, with gangs of school-age urchins roaming the streets "picking a pocket or two", working for Fagin and living on moldy sausages and gin.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jamie123

[Fether]

42 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

You certainly would get to "pick" if you had the money. And even now people still get to pick Eton or Harrow or Winchester or Malvern or Westminster or Rugby or Charterhouse...etc. etc... for their kids' education if they can afford the fees. By making all schools fee-paying you'd certainly offer a wealth of "choice" to the rich, at the expense of giving no choice whatsoever to the poor. And for the poorest, the one choice available would be "no school at all". We'd be back to Oliver Twist times, with gangs of school-age urchins roaming the streets "picking a pocket or two", working for Fagin and living on moldy sausages and gin.

If all that was available were “private” schools, the price to get your kids involved in them would drop due to the increase competition. I don’t have a firm opinion on it, but maybe there could still be some government funding involved that is paid through local taxes, but the less government involved in education the better.

Life is going to be better for the wealthy no matter what, there will always be more options for them and less for the poor. That is not an immoral thing. What is immoral is having an established society forces equal opportunity for the poor and wealthy. A people cannot he successful when they enable the lazy and wasteful members of the society.
 

When you are poor, majority of the time it is because you are lazy and/or bad with money. Redistribute all the money in the USA and in 10 years time the people who were originally poor will be poor again and the people who were originally rich will be rich again. Being poor is not an unalterable genetic disorder, it is a way of life.

[Fether]

And to address the elephant before it gets used against me, yes there are countless ways people can get poor due to life events. Disease, death, disasters, etc. How we react to these exceptions is what separates socialism from capitalism.

Capitalism requires Christlike individuals to help out. Socialism relies on government programs, and for every 1 person that gets aid in those times of difficulty, there are 10 more people that don’t need the aid but are using the system to not work and get free hand outs.

I predict that capitalism will disappear more and more as Christianity diminishes across the world. Capitalism without Christianity is just a barbaric survival of the fittest

[Jamie123]

28 minutes ago, Fether said:

And to address the elephant before it gets used against me, yes there are countless ways people can get poor due to life events. Disease, death, disasters, etc. How we react to these exceptions is what separates socialism from capitalism.

Capitalism requires Christlike individuals to help out. Socialism relies on government programs, and for every 1 person that gets aid in those times of difficulty, there are 10 more people that don’t need the aid but are using the system to not work and get free hand outs.

I predict that capitalism will disappear more and more as Christianity diminishes across the world. Capitalism without Christianity is just a barbaric survival of the fittest

Absolutely. If everyone were Christlike, there would be no need for socialism. Similarly, if everyone were honest, there would be no need for police, and the rhetoric of the BLM people would be spot on!

But I cannot equate having a conscience with "Christianity". It's a clear fallacy that without believing in God, you can have no sense of right or wrong. Is Richard Dawkins dragged before the beak every other day for beating up old ladies and stealing their pensions? No, I don't think he is, is he?

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jamie123
I meant Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking!

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

But I cannot equate having a conscience with "Christianity". It's a clear fallacy that without believing in God, you can have no sense of right or wrong. Is Richard Dawkins dragged before the beak every other day for beating up old ladies and stealing their pensions? No, I don't think he is, is he?

Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on goodness.  Nor are atheists evil. But Christianity fosters the attributes needed for capitalism and provides the community needed to develop the relationships needed to assist those in need.

[estradling75]

Socialism and Capitalism both fundamentally suffer from the exact same problem.  The problem is Human Nature.  More explicitly as the collected human wisdom has declared "Power Corrupts"  Or has the Lord has declared in his holy word "Unrighteous Dominion"

 

Socialism defenders are more than happy to point out the power corruption that happens in capitalism.  They will point out to anyone and everyone that will listen how those that get rich tend to leverage their wealth, power, and influence to get more wealth, power, and influence.  And they are not wrong.

 

But their solution does not solve anything, it simply shuffles the players.  Socialism requires larger centralized powerful organizations to work at all. (aka government)  This is subject to corruption from the beginning.  The real difference is that with Capitalism you have to have a proven track record of being effective and efficient in the large players because that is how they got there.  And they have to stay that way or someone comes along and does things better and takes their power away. Government organizations are more known for their ineffectiveness and inefficiencies and once setup pretty much require a revolution to change.

 

So Socialism effectively takes the worst parts of Capitalism... dials them to an 11 and declares, "It is better" and hopes you are foolish enough to believe it.

 

Case in point.  Currently the USA is having a "Black Lives Matter" movement and "Defund the Police" movement.  Both these movements point to Police Corruption as their driving motivation. Police are a larger organization with power, so while there are many honorable and good police officers the organization itself is just as vulnerable to the corruption of power as any Capitalist (or other) powerful Organizations.    

 

The possibility of a corrupt police force is not something that came out of nowhere or caught us by surprise.  We knew about it, that is why we have checks and balances. Things like the judicial branch of government with judges and attorneys, things like other parts of the executive branch like Governors, Mayors, Attorney General's etc. And that is just some of the things.  But the biggest check is that for most people they do not actually have any encounter with a law enforcement officer (Corrupt or not Corrupt) And yet we still have issues.

 

And Socialist want to add Healthcare into that?!?!  I have orders of magnitude more contact with Healthcare providers then I do with Law Enforcement Providers.  Healthcare is way more massive and deals with way more money then the Police ever will. That is just asking for a "Black Health Matters" movement and a "Defund Healthcare" movement.  I say this with certainty because human nature is not changed. It might start off good, but "Power will inevitably corrupt" and the checks and balances for the system if there are any (which No Socialist will talk about) will not be much better then what we currently can do.

 

Another saying of collected Human wisdom is "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions"  and that is all that Socialist have. Paver Stones to Hell.  They talk a good talk, they "mean well" but the fruit of their tree is quickly shown to be corrupt and evil. And By their fruits you shall know them.

[Jamie123]

45 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is just asking for a "Black Health Matters" movement and a "Defund Healthcare" movement.  I say this with certainty because human nature is not changed. It might start off good, but "Power will inevitably corrupt" and the checks and balances for the system if there are any (which No Socialist will talk about) will not be much better then what we currently can do.

I live in the UK, and I've never heard a single mention of "Black Health Matters". Ever. (Well not until you said it anyway.)

P.S. I was sufficiently intrigued to Google the phrase and...well...yes it's there. But nearly all the sites are in the US...suggesting that it's not particularly linked to socialized healthcare. And the fact that I'd not even heard of it before does suggest it's not the can of worms that you make out.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

54 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Another saying of collected Human wisdom is "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions"  and that is all that Socialist have. Paver Stones to Hell.  They talk a good talk, they "mean well" but the fruit of their tree is quickly shown to be corrupt and evil. And By their fruits you shall know them.

The National Health Service has existed in the UK since 1948. That's 72 years, so if it's a matter of "it might start off good", the honeymoon has sure lasted. If we're tiptoeing down the "Paver Stones to Hell", we must be near the 9th Circle by now. I'll give your regards to Brutus and Cassius! 😆

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Socialism and Capitalism both fundamentally suffer from the exact same problem.  The problem is Human Nature.  More explicitly as the collected human wisdom has declared "Power Corrupts"  Or has the Lord has declared in his holy word "Unrighteous Dominion"

 

I would agree with this first part.

Many would view the Law of Consecration and the United Order (ESPECIALLY how it was implemented under Joseph Smith and even moreso under Brigham Young) as socialism (or, a type of communism...though that tends to make people get upset on these forums when that word is utilized, even if correctly, in regards to these things).

Ironically, this point was used occasionally in the past as an item AGAINST the members of the church, as back in the early 20th century it was not seen as a good thing by everyone (though there were certainly those proponents of socialism back then).

However, there IS one big difference between the Marxist communism we see today and the way the church did it (though, in the minds of many who are not part of the Church, when looking at what Brigham young did, they would have a different approach seeing it more as a dictatorial theocratic government or, if less than that, one controlled by a group of people in charge)...that is while one is broken by men and controlled by Human nature with the push to do away with religion and a enveloped look of atheism...The Lord's laws have it that the Lord is in charge.

Having the Lord in charge changes everything in regards to the idea of redistribution of wealth so that there is no rich or poor among them (one of the key things used regarding the Law of Consecration...of interest, many see that there is no poor among them...but there ALSO tends to be the statement that there was no RICH among them either).  The Lord doesn't get corrupted, has the spiritual and divine involved, and moves men more towards the ideals the Lord has set, rather than the ideals of men.

Ezra Taft Benson pointed out one of the great evils of the Marxist Communism that was across the globe in the mid-20th century.  He knew it was very close in regards to the Lord's plan...but it was not the Lord's way.  The Adversary counterfeits many of the things of the Lord and presents them as a higher way of doing things.  Communism as found in the USSR, as President Benson (though he was an Elder at the time) was one of these counterfeit things placed on this earth by the Adversary.  It had many of the elements of the Lord's plan, but was changed just enough (atheism instead of the divine, men instead of the Lord, etc) to make it a work of evil, grand evil, that worked against the Lord and his people.

As we see in both the USSR and other nations where Marxism has taken root, human nature and leaving it in the hands of those there changes many of the proclaimed idea into a more oligarchical society where the extremes of rich and poor once again take root, but this again engineered in a socially fake design where men keep their fellow members of the human race down in order to prop up themselves with money and power.

Corruption seems inherent in the system designed by the Adversary.

It is ironic then that with several small changes to make it promote the Lord, being led by the Lords servants, to promote the divine and the spiritual, and several other things, it can be changed to the United Order and the Law of Consecration to be a force of good, rather than evil.

Socialism in general I do not think is evil anymore than a gun or a hammer is evil.  It is a tool that can be employed.  Unfortunately, just like any other system, it can be corrupted, especially as Human nature leads men to seek power and glory to themselves.  I'd say the same applies to Capitalism though, and as we see today, Capitalism utilized in a more corrupt manner where a few control the very access to government regulations and laws can lead more towards Corporatism gone crazy where large entities quash everything else and make rules that aid them while hurting others, rather than the more fair and ethical ideas where everyman can create and improve his own mercantile domain.  Rather than a society where everyman competes with others which results in an improved product, lifestyle, and means for all, corruption leads to a place where it becomes very hard for small businessmen to be successful as even regulations and codes work against them being able to rise up in success to better themselves and the rest of society.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Socialism in general I do not think is evil anymore than a gun or a hammer is evil.  It is a tool that can be employed.

Also, I think any human society has elements of capitalism and socialism - the differences between societies come down to the proportions in which they are mixed, i.e. how things are divided between the private and public domains. In the USSR people still had money, and the agency to decide how they spent it. In a 100% socialist society there would be no money at all: each citizen would simply be issued with food, clothing and a place to live, and work to do.

Conversely, a perfect capitalist "society" (if you could even call it that) would have no government at all: individuals would be responsible for raising their own food - or else creating some other commodity which they could exchange for food and other necessities by barter. There could be no fiat money, since there would be no state to administer it. Some powerful individuals might issue their own "money", but it would only be worth anything while those individuals remained powerful. Similarly there would be no police or armed services - individuals would be responsible for protecting their own lives and lands and property. The weak would turn to the strong for protection, and pay for it. Protection racketeers would effectively become the police and the army.

This probably is how countries originally evolved: these "protection racketeers" became chieftains, and later kings. They fought with each other, annexing each other's territories, so their kingdoms became large and unwieldy. Eventually they had to share their power, leading to oligarchies and finally democracies. The benefits of "the state" - originally the benefits a king provided to his subjects - came to be seen as the common property or "common wealth" of those subjects (now "citizens") - and the king merely a steward. Sometimes (like in ancient Athens) the king was removed altogether. Thus we see the beginnings of what would eventually be called "socialism" or a centralized commonwealth - owned by everyone, centrally managed for the benefit of everyone.

And every society on earth has some of it. There are no qualitative differences: it is simply a matter of where one places "the marker" between what is private (a matter for the individual) and what is public (a matter for the commonwealth or state). One society might consider only justice and national defence to be public concerns. Others might add education and policing to the list. Still more may add healthcare. But there is no society (except possibly a few religious theocracies at one extreme, or total anarchies on the other) in which it is all or nothing.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Jamie123

[Still_Small_Voice]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

Life is going to be better for the wealthy no matter what, there will always be more options for them and less for the poor. That is not an immoral thing. What is immoral is having an established society forces equal opportunity for the poor and wealthy. A people cannot he successful when they enable the lazy and wasteful members of the society.

When the government takes by force all or most of private property from citizens to try to make everyone equal everyone ends up in poverty.  President David O. McKay said:  “The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth.”

Consecration is the system that will lift everyone from poverty but it requires a good and pure people.  All people need to be willing to work diligently and productively and be honest.  The rich need to be willing to share their excess with the poor and not live lavishly.  The common people need to be content with their substance and possessions.  

Capitalism is the system that presently distributes more wealth to every person and is better than anything else out there now.  And we can live consecration now by paying our tithes and offerings and giving our excess wealth to help lift others.  

Edit: Also, avoiding debt will enable us to give more to others spiritually and temporally.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Still_Small_Voice

[Traveler]

I am a little disappointed with this thread.  I pointed out that a major "FLAW" of socialism is the one size fits all mentality.    I may have missed the discussions but it does appear to me that no one addressed this issue from either side of the discussion.  There are many issues concerning socialism - most of them are highlighted by those that favor "free markets".  

With very few exceptions - most any citizen of the USA can chose socialism.  They can have free housing, meals, clothing, health care, education and even retirement benefits - but with so many things in this universe there is a catch.  The catch is that every morning someone will come and wake you up - you will not be allowed to sleep in.  You can do what I did when I was 17 and join the military.  I quickly decided, that for me - I would serve my required time in the army and be done with it.

I am convinced that someone (especially from the rising generation) that argues for socialism that has chosen not to join the military - does not know what they are talking (arguing) about.

 

Those that argue for free market health care - I also think are somewhat ill informed.   It should be obvious that the scarcity of health care creates prohibitive costs for high end procedures.  Obviously the multi millionaire professional sport athlete receives far superior health care (regardless of race) than the average citizen.  But there is an advantage for the average citizen - the super rich fund research and development that would not outer wise be available.  The high end procedures of past decades become common place and much less expensive over time.  For example I had eye surgery for a genetic caused macular hole.  Two decades ago I would have gone blind but recent innovations have made this process far less costly and reliable.   I personally think it is a really good idea to use the wealthy as guinea pigs to try out and perfect procedures before they are ready and reliable; even in a socialists setting.   I understand that because of scarcity - new and innovative procedures can never be part of the one size fits all socialistic mentality.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 5, 2020 by Traveler

[Jamie123]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am a little disappointed with this thread.  I pointed out that a major "FLAW" of socialism is the one size fits all mentality.    I may have missed the discussions but it does appear to me that no one addressed this issue from either side of the discussion. 

To be frank, I wasn't at all sure what you meant by "one size fits all", or why you think socialism assumes it. I think I get what you're saying now (treating the athlete the same as the average citizen would have been to waste the chance for pushing the boundaries of research) but it wasn't obvious from your original post. But one thing a lot of people miss is that having socialized healthcare does not preclude having private healthcare too. The UK has private hospitals alongside the NHS ones.

[Fether]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am a little disappointed with this thread.  I pointed out that a major "FLAW" of socialism is the one size fits all mentality.    I may have missed the discussions but it does appear to me that no one addressed this issue from either side of the discussion.  There are many issues concerning socialism - most of them are highlighted by those that favor "free markets".  

I certainly did, didn’t use the same terminology though. I talked about how socialism creates systems to help the people who are poor due to legitimize circumstance, but the programs bleed predominantly into situations where people are just being lazy. This one size fits all approach enables many lazy people to continue to be lazy

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

I certainly did, didn’t use the same terminology though. I talked about how socialism creates systems to help the people who are poor due to legitimize circumstance, but the programs bleed predominantly into situations where people are just being lazy. This one size fits all approach enables many lazy people to continue to be lazy

My turn to wear the "stupid" hat then

[Traveler]

32 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

To be frank, I wasn't at all sure what you meant by "one size fits all", or why you think socialism assumes it. I think I get what you're saying now (treating the athlete the same as the average citizen would have been to waste the chance for pushing the boundaries of research) but it wasn't obvious from your original post. But one thing a lot of people miss is that having socialized healthcare does not preclude having private healthcare too. The UK has private hospitals alongside the NHS ones.

I am not sure you still understand the one size fits all.  I think you would understand the concept after a couple of years in the military.   We would all sleep in a same size bunk (regardless of the size of the person).  We all had the same issue for clothing.  We all went to the same place to eat - but we were able to determine portions.   If someone got the flu - we all got the same shot.  We all got the same pay based on rank regardless of abilities.  If someone wanted education (including college) we all got the same education benefit.  If someone in the company screwed up we were all given extra duty - and so on and so on.

My point here is; if anyone wants socialism - they can try it out for themselves by joining the military.  If you do not think the military is for you - then do not expect anyone to believe you.  If you want a choice - do not force (or even suggest) non choice for everybody else!!!

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

My turn to wear the "stupid" hat then

Answer - all of them.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

39 minutes ago, Fether said:

I certainly did, didn’t use the same terminology though. I talked about how socialism creates systems to help the people who are poor due to legitimize circumstance, but the programs bleed predominantly into situations where people are just being lazy. This one size fits all approach enables many lazy people to continue to be lazy

Maybe - but socialism is not about help - it is about everybody is treated the same.  This is the one size fits all.  The military is such a equalizer.  There is not such thing as lazy.  The term in the military is a deserter - which is a crime punishable by death.  Like I said - the catch is that every morning someone comes and wakes you up.  If you do not want to go along with the regulars - your choice is to go along with everybody in the brig.   No one that argues for socialism ever talks about how it is enforced.  And many complain about how the mentally ill are treated in free societies like the USA - but they never consider how the mentally ill are treated in any socialists society.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure you still understand the one size fits all.  I think you would understand the concept after a couple of years in the military.   We would all sleep in a same size bunk (regardless of the size of the person).  We all had the same issue for clothing.  We all went to the same place to eat - but we were able to determine portions.   If someone got the flu - we all got the same shot.  We all got the same pay based on rank regardless of abilities.  If someone wanted education (including college) we all got the same education benefit.  If someone in the company screwed up we were all given extra duty - and so on and so on.

My point here is; if anyone wants socialism - they can try it out for themselves by joining the military.  If you do not think the military is for you - then do not expect anyone to believe you.  If you want a choice - do not force (or even suggest) non choice for everybody else!!!

 

The Traveler

I've never been in the military. (Aside from having the most civilian mindset imaginable, I have asthma and flat feet, so the issue never really arose.) But even I can see that the Army must recognize all men (and women) are not the same. There are natural leaders, whom it would be beneficial to train as officers. There are strong, fast, men with lots of stamina, who would be good as elite front-line troops. There are people who are proficient with technology, who would make good engineers and technicians. There are people with efficient, methodical minds who would work well as clerks and administrators. I suppose they all must be capable of a bit of basic soldiering (you never know where or when an enemy might turn up!) but it's still hardly "one size fits all".

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I've never been in the military. (Aside from having the most civilian mindset imaginable, I have asthma and flat feet, so the issue never really arose.) But even I can see that the Army must recognize all men (and women) are not the same. There are natural leaders, whom it would be beneficial to train as officers. There are strong, fast, men with lots of stamina, who would be good as elite front-line troops. There are people who are proficient with technology, who would make good engineers and technicians. There are people with efficient, methodical minds who would work well as clerks and administrators. I suppose they all must be capable of a bit of basic soldiering (you never know where or when an enemy might turn up!) but it's still hardly "one size fits all".

Exactly - this is why socialism is flawed.  There is always the exception in the nature of this universe.  Socialism cannot deal fairly with exceptions.  Thus there will always be imbalance between what is just and what is fair.   Justice, liberty, freedom and free will cannot exist without religion and a belief that, outside of life and the universe, there is intelligence and power to restore justice, liberty, freedom and mercy.  Socialism, of necessity assumes justice  cannot be reconciled with liberty, freedom and free will - which is the engine of differences and exceptions.

Your point is spot on.

 

The Traveler