Thursday, August 4, 2016

Is There a Gentle and Benevolent Version of Socialism?

The definition of socialism is about as protean as any political term can get. And this is dangerous for Freepers. Is America post-FDR socialist? Freepers would say yes. Is all socialism just like Soviet Russia? Freepers would also say yes.

Thus you get a Townhall 'think piece' with the above title that shockingly ends up concluding that Bernie Sanders is just like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Pol Pot. And Freepers try to pretend they have a political philosophy beyond tribalism for a moment, and fail quite amusingly.

Cvengr explains that socialism isn't a philosophy, it's more of an insatiable organism:
A major problem with socialism is that it creeps in like a contagion and wfter the society is ‘socialized’, it still is crying the mantra to tax the rich and redistribute the wealth. Socialists don’t identify with the socialism they have already established further eroding free markets.

Even after they have stolen that which wasn’t theirs, they aren’t satiated by their gains. They want more from a pot with less and less available and never acknowledge when they have received their spoils.

It’s an economy for criminals and thieves who are all liars and are never satiated with their unsustainable lusts.
moovova explains that if you're realistic you realize socialism is always death camps:
Only in a socialist’s mind.

The reality of socialism is a different matter.
Innovative just repurposes the scoffing that people did against Communism:
Sure, in someone’s dream, but NOT in the real world.
ealgeone also confuses Communism with socialism:
No. Just ask the people of Cuba, North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union, etc.

To do all that socialism claims the government has to have the power to take from one and give to the other. And this authority has to be absolute.
GenXteacher does not believe Scandinavia exists:
It is fiscally impossible for a government to support its citizens or to try to guarantee a minimum standard of living and still remain solvent. No matter how they may disguise that bankruptcy it will eventually manifest itself, with the resulting anarchy becoming a dictatorship, if history is any guide.
Baynative has heard of Scandinavia, though he smugly points out that because they're not full Communists, socialism must have failed:
In order for socialism to succeed it has to continually take more from producers, impose more control over citizens and grow the power of the government in order to force compliance. As the enforcement of compliance increases the value of people decreases.

It is a death spiral for freedom because the government has no choice by to become more authoritarian in order to keep people in line. This is why Denmark and Sweden are moving back to more free market policies in order to save their economy.
EagleUSA gets cute:
That idea is like being “partially pregnant”.
XenaLee explains that mixing up socialism with Communism is what the smart people do:
In a word, no. I believe I saw it first here at FR and it has, over the past 15+ years, become even truer now than ever.... “Socialism is just communism with a smiley face.”
Hedge-lawyer Amendment10 cites some pre-14th Amendment law:
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Only the states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to tax and spend for social spending programs, ultimately depending on what the legal majority voters of a given state want.
Uber-extremist Carl Vehse is never at a loss for pat, easy answers:
Is There a Gentle and Benevolent Version of Socialism?

Is there a gentle and benevolent version of the commandment, "Thou shall not steal."?
ought-six knows people are only motivated by cash money:
No, there isn’t. Socialism saps the energy and initiative and ambition of a people until there is nothing left but a dependent shell of what once was a free and independent human being.
Lorianne allows that socialism can work, if there are no laws.
Socialism can work well, on a small scale and limited basis and if it is entirely voluntary.

It’s all about scale and lack of coercion.
Going the other direction, SWAMPSNIPER points out that that socialism requires laws, which are basically tyranny:
Tyranny must always be in the wings as an option for socialism to function. Take it away and someone might not want to share.
Bernard Marx really puts a button on what all these Freepers are talking around - socialism is bad because liberals are evil:
I agree with David Horowitz’s motto: “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”
Yaelle goes on about how socialism is a lie, and even families are meritocracies:
When socialism starts in a country, officially, it works for a short while, as does any other plan. When they run out of money to feed the habits of the open mouthed citizens, there are two choices. Double down on the Fantastic Experiment (and end up like North Korea or any other places where the people like in abject slavery), or give it up and allow human nature and freedom to reign. Period.

Can socialism work on a very small scale? Yes. It takes a tiny tiny group of extreme likemindeds who love and accept each other and agree to work for the common goal and take care of the weakest without expecting anything from them. Some families operate like this. But most families also live with a normal, human nature- allowing, meritocracy as well. So, really, socialism is a fully failed idea.

In 2016, with all the evidence on the table, socialism is merely a means to control a lot of people by a few who keep power and resources to themselves.
Yaelle really loves this subject, despite the historical ignorance it takes to write that unlike capitalism, socialism doesn't allow for the people to revolt...
One of the most dangerous things about socialism today is how “intelligent” but uninformed (on history, for instance) people can agree (vote) for such central planning.

How can they know who will be the central planners? How can they trust anyone given that amount of power to use it in thief own best interests? What is the basis for this control? “The Common Good” should not be accepted as a satisfying goal.

Our Constitution is based on an immutable fact that our Creator made us free people. Period. But we need systems of justice and defense to protect our freedom. Our system is CLEARLY also corruptible but we have fair right to demand even through bloodshed that our government buckle under to us. How do you write that into Socialist planning? “If it should not work, please rise up against us?” Because we understand the liberty tree is sometimes watered with blood.
mulligan knows the best socialism:
Yes, free enterprise capitalism.
Next time Pollster1 makes a rape analogy, maybe he shouldn't equate seduction to charity, cause now it's weird.
Sexual favors can be provided voluntarily. This is called seduction, and it is more or less gentle and benevolent but never involves force or threats. Wealth can be redistributed voluntarily to those in need. This is called "charity", and I participate in it extensively - as an individual and as a Christian - by choice.

Sexual favors can also be demanded involuntarily. This is called rape, and it is an act of pure evil that requires force or threats. Wealth can be redistributed involuntarily to those defined by those with political power to be "in need", but only through a disproportionate application of force or threats. This is called "socialism", and I would never voluntarily participate in that act of pure evil any more than I would participate in a rape.

Rape is an act of violence that takes from its victim, leaving both offender and victim worse than before. Socialism is morally the same - taking from those who produced with no justification beyond the power to take.
theBuckwheat rants that it's all lies and anti-Bible. He also thinks socialism requires price controls.
Socialism is built upon lies, coveting and theft. Socialism starts at its foundation by insulting and violating three of the Ten Commandments.

That society would be better under socialism is a lie. That it will be more prosperous is a lie, that there will not be nearly as much “income inequality” is a lie.

Socialism uses economic lies to attempt to change aspects of human nature that have nothing to do with money. To that end, it must tell lies, it must try to make these lies work and it must enforce lies.

One of the first list that socialists must put forth is how much an item costs. They advance this lie with every tool of government: subsidy, tax credits, regulator advantage, forced sales, price control, dictates and controlled markets. But in the the end no government on earth is so powerful that it can permanently hide when the economy consumes more resources than it produces.
As he does with everything he disagrees with, blueunicorn6 thinks it's all a scam:
Socialism is just some people who want to ride in the government limousines and live in the palaces getting other people to kill and die for them so they can ride in the government limousines and live in the palaces.


  1. "Socialism is just some people who want to ride in the government limousines and live in the palaces getting other people to kill and die for them so they can ride in the government limousines and live in the palaces."

    blueunicorn6 has to be trolling with this comment ...
    as if anyone can't tell he's describing Donald Trump to a "T".

  2. I wonder how the griftathons would go if socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security were abolished overnight?

  3. I read stuff like this and wonder, "Are these people going to refuse their Social Security checks when they arrive? Because that is literally socialism."

    1. That why I call it Socialist Security: A pyramid scheme at the point of a gun.