Union of Soviet Socialist Ran's Board Threads

[KAH]

When I say socialist means I'm talking about empowering government to force people to give up private property. To cap people's incomes at a certian level. To make private ownership of property illegal. I understand this is not what has happened in democratic socialist States. Hence, the distiction I'm trying to draw.

There's some further distinction needed here, methinks.

Taxes - any taxes - are government forcing people to give up part of the fruits of their (or, alternatively, someone elses) labour, after all.

[The Stranger]

I'm not advocating socialism in total. What I believe in are Socialist ends, I've never believed in Socialist means.

Alert the internet: Scot wants God dead, but doesn't want to be the guy who commits deicide.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The Stranger,

Alert the internet: Scot wants God dead, but doesn't want to be the guy who commits deicide.

No. I just want people to choose to do this on an individual basis, not because Government told them to do it at gun point.

KAH,

There's some further distinction needed here, methinks.

Taxes - any taxes - are government forcing people to give up part of the fruits of their (or, alternatively, someone elses) labour, after all.

I disagree. We've seen, for centuries, that Government can tax without completely eliminating private ownership of property.

[Datepalm]

Scot - Christians -I suppose it makes it a game of semantics then. As you would call yourself a christian despite the existence of everyone from the Borgia popes to child molestation to that guy who think the Haitian earthquake was a pact with the devil, i'll stick with being a socialist despite Pol Pot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Scot - Christians -I suppose it makes it a game of semantics then. As you would call yourself a christian despite the existence of everyone from the Borgia popes to child molestation to that guy who think the Haitian earthquake was a pact with the devil, i'll stick with being a socialist despite Pol Pot.

I simply don't claim those misguided and evil people aren't Christians.

[Datepalm]

I simply don't claim those misguided and evil people aren't Christians.

Do you think that there is somethign inherent in the building blocks of christianity that keeps popping out these evil folks? I don't belive that about socialism, and it dosen't matter much to me whether I say i'm a socialist even though Pol Pot was too, or say Pol Pot wasn't a real socialist.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

I think misguided or evil people will use whatever is at hand to further their goals. Everything can be twisted to serve what someone believes to be good ends. Every action, no matter how represensible to us, can be rationalized by someone who agrees with the ends those actions were intended to further. As such I think the means have to matter. From what I've read of you I think you believe the same thing.

[Galactus]

The way I see it, socialism is simply the natural extension of democracy. Liberals somehow draw the arbitrary line that "certain things should be subject to democratic processes of decision-making, but certain things should not be" socialists just say that it should all be.

Which may or may not be a good decision, depending on what you want with your society, but it's certainly consistent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

The way I see it, socialism is simply the natural extension of democracy. Liberals somehow draw the arbitrary line that "certain things should be subject to democratic processes of decision-making, but certain things should not be" socialists just say that it should all be.

Which may or may not be a good decision, depending on what you want with your society, but it's certainly consistent.

I can see that. I suppose I simply disagree with many here where the line of what is subject to a vote should be drawn.

[Datepalm]

Every action, no matter how represensible to us, can be rationalized by someone who agrees with the ends those actions were intended to further.

Not really, no. Well, by someone, but not by me. It depends on what the ends and what the means are, but even if I believed that the USSR was really truly trying to build socialism with the famines and the purges, I wouldn't justify them, because they are un-socialisticish...something. Oddly, we've been having this debate over morality and ends and means in the book forum. In the sense that my grasp of socialism does not focus on "the revolution" as some single momentary even with a before and an after, doing something which is callous of human life and promoting of inequality is just not socialist.

It still comes down to what the hell you mean by "socialist means". Whats particualrly socialist about them?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Not really, no. Well, by someone, but not by me. It depends on what the ends and what the means are, but even if I believed that the USSR was really truly trying to build socialism with the famines and the purges, I wouldn't justify them, because they are un-socialisticish...something. Oddly, we've been having this debate over morality and ends and means in the book forum. In the sense that my grasp of socialism does not focus on "the revolution" as some single momentary even with a before and an after, doing something which is callous of human life and promoting of inequality is just not socialist.

It still comes down to what the hell you mean by "socialist means". Whats particualrly socialist about them?

"Socialist means" was poor phrasing on my part, I struck through and edited to clarify. What I mean is extreme socialism where private property is banned by Government without people agreeing to end private ownership of property.

[Datepalm]

"Socialist means" was poor phrasing on my part, I struck through and edited to clarify. What I mean is extreme socialism where private property is banned by Government without people agreeing to end private ownership of property.

Right, whats socialist about that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Right, whats socialist about that?

The ends the imposers are pushing. Equalizing society and eliminating private ownership of property and putting the means of production in the hands of the "People" by extension "The Government". Those aren't socialist prinicipals?

[KAH]

I disagree. We've seen, for centuries, that Government can tax without completely eliminating private ownership of property.

The underlying principle being that the government confiscating property is wrong, no? It's not a matter of degree here, of what will work - it's a matter of what is right.

Would you consider it OK if a thief just stole half or a quarter of your belongings?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KAH,

The underlying principle being that the government confiscating property is wrong, no? It's not a matter of degree here, of what will work - it's a matter of what is right.

Would you consider it OK if a thief just stole half or a quarter of your belongings?

No, I would not. But that said Government provides services it can't do that without money to do it with. Perhaps a better means would be tolls for roads and fees everything else government provides. That said many, if not most, object to tolls and fees for government serivces and prefer to socialize the cost via taxes under the theory we will all use these things eventually. I accept that's the way things are done even if I disagree. In the US the 16th Amendment gives the Federal Government the power to lay and collect income taxes. It was ratified. It's the law. Unless it is repealed the Government has that power.

[DanteGabriel]

Scot, you sure do engage in a lot of poor phrasing for a guy who started a thread just to split hairs.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

Scot, you sure do engage in a lot of poor phrasing for a guy who started a thread just to split hairs.

Objecting to using force to eliminate private property ownership is splitting hairs?

[Thor85]

But whats wrong with taking from the ultra-rich (think Donald Trump, that loaded jerk) and giving to the semi-poor, not quite middle-class (think me)? And has anyone here met your typical East European oligarch? Its really not a pretty sight. In my opinion, those rich people deserve to be ripped off by the right kind of government. So I say let the red banners fly and red cavalry ride and let us, the glorious proletariat, rise.

[KAH]

Perhaps a better means would be tolls for roads and fees everything else government provides. That said many, if not most, object to tolls and fees for government serivces and prefer to socialize the cost via taxes under the theory we will all use these things eventually. I accept that's the way things are done even if I disagree. In the US the 16th Amendment gives the Federal Government the power to lay and collect income taxes. It was ratified. It's the law. Unless it is repealed the Government has that power.

If you are going to be using tolls and fees for everything, you might as well abolish 99% of the government leaving only a small regulatory body, because aside from that it then fills no function that private firms could not do.

Just because it is the law does not automatically make it right, which I believe is the very fundament of the thread you started, no?

[john]

Mass mesmerism. We build a fiendish device which pumps the urge to share into the minds of the populace, while simultaneously eliminating the knowledge of the presence of this mind ray. Instant utopia.

We will of course need to "enlist" people to build it for us and hold it collectively on behalf of the people.