Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

I would say that self interest guides most voters, and lets face it, my self interest is not necessarily yours. I think that morality is in many ways static, and there are certain acts that are considered immoral for a very rational reason, such as murder or rape. What is important is that the system should force people to compromise and make no laws were no law needs making. We have to acknowledge and act on the wills of every party involved, the large and the small, to come to an acceptable solution to any problem or perceived problem.

I think that it is a good rule of thumb that laws should only be made when there is an act that demonstrably has adverse physical or economic affects in order to curb those aspect that adversely affect another individual or group(s) individuals of in against his/her/ their will.
-

Are you saying every citizen has the right to do whatever they want to do regardless of what the majority thinks? It seems as though that is what you are saying. So if it is not "of the people, by the people and for the people", what is it that would satisfy you, considering democracy, in your opinion is tyranny? What do you propose?

William

I listened The Grapes of Wrath as Audio Book until they reach California and everybody starts dying.
From there it just goes socialist on you, and reading the Wikipedia summary on the rest was enough for me.

Then your not one of the moral majority who in my opinion classify certain moral duties as their main concern.Your opinions classify you as right of centre, my interests should come first.The interests of the majorities moral obligations should come first.The security of our employment, education, health care.

Whether we admit it or not, we're all inherently socialist to some degree. All manner of municipal, state and federal services could be seen as socialist. Many Americans I've spoken to seem almost phobic to the mention of the word. Why should any society not be able to chose whichever social system suits it so long as that is accomplished democratically and recognizes minority rights? I have listened many times as Americans equated socialism with tyranny even totalitarianism. They set up democracy and capitalism as inextricably interwoven whereas, as we see in China, capitalism actually prefers a more structured, less democratic milieu in which to thrive. Likewise, many of the moderate socialist states, such as those in Scandinavia are progressive, very democratic and share robust economies. What makes that inherently bad when these peoples have an excellent quality of life?

Sorry zetec but you have not really explained your views sufficiently
for me to make a comment.Anything in American politics that is right of centre,for a socialist is almost facist.I abhor anarchy and anything that does not smack of democratic socialism shows evidence of a faulty gene in the population. :bigsmile:

Sorry zetec but you have not really explained your views sufficiently for me to make a comment.

Anything in American politics that is right of centre,for a socialist is almost facist.I abhor anarchy and anything that does not smack of democratic socialism shows evidence of a faulty gene in the population. :bigsmile:

So you really didn't get anything out of what I said? You didn't understand one iota of it? If so, I'm not sure if I can make it anymore clear. If you can give me some idea of what you gathered from what I said, maybe I can work with you to have a more meaningful conversation. If you really gathered absolutely nothing from it, I suppose I have nothing more to say to you. Try thinking on it a bit and coming back to it.



So are you being facetious or is there some truth to what you are positing here? Are you serious about the part concerning democratic socialism (if so, I would suggest you read some political philosophy, you might that other more sociologically/philosophically developed viewpoints more appealing). If you want to better understand my position on government, read Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

Well you are a communist.

Dont take it so personal zetec it could be my failure not yours.You stating your an anarchist is much more revealing.I have only seen anarchy in historic England, in the middle ages, it does not appeal to me.If you can give a better example ide appreciate it.

I am not an anarchist per se, but I understand where they are coming from and sympathize with them. I just am very unsure about how tenable anarchy is in practice.

I am more of a libertarian, but not in the half-arsed way that people who call into Rush Limbaugh to complain about runaway government spending are. I feel that the it is fundamentally coercive and unjust to make a law on the basis that it is 'for your own good'. If I commit an act that does not directly harm anyone but myself, such as smoke crack or sleep with a prostitute or even sell myself as an indentured servant, then I have done nothing that can be directly considered to violate another person's ability to thrive, so to restrict such action is unjust. In many ways, government programs fall under the category of a 'coercive apparatus'. Taxation for services not granted to you or demanded under the premise that they will achieve something that they will not are coercive if held to be mandatory.

So if I tax person X, to help out person Y, even though the intent is moral, the mechanism I use is unjust if person X does not agree with it. If the negative outcome of an action is not manifest in a violent, coercive, financial or material way, in other words, if it simply makes others uncomfortable, then it is unjust and coercive to outlaw it. This is especially true if the justification is that such a law is 'for your own good'.

then as a democratic socialist i disagree with your politics.I believe we have a responsibility to each other and only through socialism can we fulfill that commitment.

then as a democratic socialist i disagree with your politics.I believe we have a responsibility to each other and only through socialism can we fulfill that commitment.

I agree that we have such responsibility, but I think that it is coercive if such a responsibility is made into law. I very much agree with the intent of charity, community service and the like and I think that such actions are important. I do not, however, believe that a coercive government is a panacea for apathy. I suppose that is where we differ.

That is wrong. The state does not have to force us to be charitable at the point of a gun, which you are supporting.
Not to mention that it can't happen because the government will always abuse it's power when it is granted more of it and thus not help the ones it should help.

Why are you calling me a fascist while supporting the state to have more power, the definition of fascism, while I am advocating the state to have less power, the definition of anti-fascism?

I dont think your facist,i merely played the fool like you did when calling me a communist.Communism as it has been protrayed and executed has more similarities to facism than a socialist ideology.Both require the blind obedience to their leaders commands and the individual becomes insignificant.So i wont be silly if you wont.I believe in the socialist ideology but like all ideologies it has certain ideas that i dont agree with, i hope not to be dogmatic in my opinions or i become that which i despise.

You are right and I retract the comment. I think we agree to the 90th percentile on the issues, and that's already a lot.
We went through it all, I hope you agree that we just have to agree to disagree.