Here’s an open challenge to the advocates of socialism:
Define individual liberty within a socialist economic framework.
Within socialism, freedom essentially means free from worry. Free from the possibility of starvation. Free from the worry of saving to retire. Free from the consequences of bad decisions. Free from the ravages of the natural order.
Essentially the same way an infant is free because no matter what it does the mother keeps it fed and protects it from getting hurt. That is how socialists see socialism as freedom. It does not mean self determination to them.
Under socialism the individual is free to do what the “collective” wills him.
Socialism is what morally bankrupt individualists adopt when they realize one would have be rich to afford the consequences of doing all those ‘free’ things with one’s own body. Not wanting to refrain from acts of ‘freedom’ which bring instant self-gratification, they look for others to subsidize their freedom.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism is what morally bankrupt individualists adopt when they realize one would have be rich to afford the consequences of doing all those ‘free’ things with one’s own body. Not wanting to refrain from acts of ‘freedom’ which bring instant self-gratification, they look for others to subsidize their freedom.[/quote]
So all Socialists are “morally bankrupt individuals” who “look for others to subsidize their freedom”?
This is why I hate POW.
[quote]and1bball4mk wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism is what morally bankrupt individualists adopt when they realize one would have be rich to afford the consequences of doing all those ‘free’ things with one’s own body. Not wanting to refrain from acts of ‘freedom’ which bring instant self-gratification, they look for others to subsidize their freedom.[/quote]
So all Socialists are “morally bankrupt individuals” who “look for others to subsidize their freedom”?
This is why I hate POW. [/quote]
Not what I said.
[quote]and1bball4mk wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism is what morally bankrupt individualists adopt when they realize one would have be rich to afford the consequences of doing all those ‘free’ things with one’s own body. Not wanting to refrain from acts of ‘freedom’ which bring instant self-gratification, they look for others to subsidize their freedom.[/quote]
So all Socialists are “morally bankrupt individuals” who “look for others to subsidize their freedom”?
This is why I hate POW. [/quote]
Either that or they are too dumb to realize the realities of their philosophy.
You are free to be a lazy bum, because the government will take care of you. Remember Obama talking about being free to pursue your dreams and interests, and not have to worry about your healthcare.
Are there really any advocates of socialism on this board that would even respond appropriately to this question?
Where’s our resident socialists? I really would love to hear their comments - not that I think you guys are wrong - but just like to hear from the source.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Are there really any advocates of socialism on this board that would even respond appropriately to this question?[/quote]
I’m not an advocate, but my first post was an attempt at an appropriate response.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Are there really any advocates of socialism on this board that would even respond appropriately to this question?[/quote]
Be patient. Ryan will be along shortly.
I have been having a nice discussion with him through PM. He is not that bad of a guy. Might be a little misguided, but a good guy. I am not on his side politically or philosophically, but he is a good guy. I can see why he beleives the way he does, but when he gets a job full time he might see a little differently, unless he gets a government job.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Are there really any advocates of socialism on this board that would even respond appropriately to this question?[/quote]
Openly advocating socialism and advocating policy that result in socialism is the same thing.
Just because they do not understand what it is they advocate does not change the nature of it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Are there really any advocates of socialism on this board that would even respond appropriately to this question?[/quote]
Openly advocating socialism and advocating policy that result in socialism is the same thing.
Just because they do not understand what it is they advocate does not change the nature of it.[/quote]
That’s pretty much what I was trying to get at earlier.
I am going to put it very simple.
freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.
btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.
freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.
btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]
You also don’t have the freedom to get rich on YOUR OWN hard work. Much of your hard earned money is rationed out to other people, who do not work as hard as you do.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.
freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.
btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]
I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?
Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
Double, because you are like the Borg. You don’t work for you, you work for the machine, the spending beast. How dare you try to keep your reward for your hard work all to yourself.
[sarcasm]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.
freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.
btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]
I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?
Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]
where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.
Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.
If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.
freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.
btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]
I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?
Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]
where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.
Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.
If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.[/quote]
So basically you beleive as the original Unions that were organized to help the common workers? I will say that the original Unions formed around 1900 give or take a few decades were needed, but in this day in time of all the information on the internet, and the legal system and government regulation the unions are no longer needed. The unions are no more than an organized mob asking for more money and more benefits at the expense of the people who have taken the risk to set up the company in the first place. The workers are no longer taken advantage of. I believe that the investors are the ones being taken advantage of. Look at the Auto companies GM and Chrysler. Both companies stock and bond holders got shit out of the agreement the Government and Unions came up with. This is socialism at its finest. Take from the people willing to sacrifice to save some money and lend it to a company, and the people who run the unions are the ones that get the money, and not the workers.