Comments on: Why socialism matters

By: Don Quixote

Don Quixote — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:02:41 +0000

Zachriel, thanks for the examples. I agree that both pieces of legislation are to promote freer markets. Both kind of start from a dispensationary premise, though. By that I mean, the notion is that the government has the absolute right to control international trade and and telecommunications and that, because it furthers some goal of those in power, the government chooses to limit its exercise of that right (and, of course, they do so by adding a raft of regulations). Anyway, it's a good, responsive effort on your part.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:10:36 +0000

Don Quixote: So, again, I ask, in any of these partnerships or anywhere else you can think of, when, in the economic sphere, has she voted for less government control and more personal freedom?

You still seem to be equating wanting more government involvement in the economy with being a socialist. Here’s a couple of Pelosi’s votes.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened up the telecommuncations market by eliminating barriers, and accelerated private sector expansion into this sector.

NAFTA, which reduced barriers to international trade.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:53:50 +0000

Don Quixote: I asserted that Pelosi was a socialist. As the discussion wore on, you agreed that one could be a socialist issue by issue, ... Someone can support public education (socialization of education) and not be a socialist, someone who thinks the means of production generally should be controlled by the government. Don Quixote: you agreed that socialist is about control not ownership ... Of course. If the government controls all aspects of production and distribution in everything but name, then it can reasonably be called socialism. Don Quixote: and, essentially, agreed that Pelosi was a socialist on the issues of global warming and health care. Um no. Pelosi didn't even support single-payer, much less government run health care. Putting limits on carbon emissions is not the same as owning (or owning in essence) the means of production. Don Quixote: She doesn’t define “Public/private partnerships. That's where there is a public policy goal, and they enlist the help of private entities to achieve those goals. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/20/first-lady-michelle-obama-announces-collaboration-walmart-support-let-s- Or it could be through market-based solution, such as for controlling atmospheric acid emissions. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/

By: Don Quixote

Don Quixote — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:16:28 +0000

I asserted that Pelosi was a socialist. As the discussion wore on, you agreed that one could be a socialist issue by issue, you agreed that socialist is about control not ownership and, essentially, agreed that Pelosi was a socialist on the issues of global warming and health care. I think it is now fair to ask you for examples of issues on which she is not a socialist, since you also made a positive assertion, asserting that she was not a socialist. If you had only put me tomy proof, you might have a point, but since you positively asserted she is not a socialist you have as mucha duty to prove it as I do.

Then you did something very interesting. You quoted Pelosi as saying:

“And again- all of our initiatives, whether it’s energy, education, health care, and the rest have been about market-oriented- solution. Public/private partnership. Public/public partnerships, private/private partnerships.”

She doesn’t define “Public/private partnerships. Public/public partnerships, private/private partnerships.” In practice, it appears that her approach is for the government to make all the rules, let the private sector do all the work, and then trhe government take a share of the proceeds. To be fair, Pelosi uses carrots and sticks to achieve her ends, but she certainly is not shy about using sticks. When she does so, she shows her true colors as someone who believes in government control absolute government control if necessary to achieve her ends, what you have now agreed is an acceptable definition of socialism.

So, again, I ask, in any of these partnerships or anywhere else you can think of, when, in the economic sphere, has she voted for less government control and more personal freedom? It’s a fair question, one asked several times, and one for whch you apparently have no answer.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:27:00 +0000

Ymarsakar, did you say something? It’s hard to tell.

It’s a test. Don’t worry if you aren’t aware of it. That’s part of the test.

By: suek

suek — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:25:45 +0000

>>The advantage of socialism is a more equitable distribution of goods, especially for the underclass or disadvantaged.>>

Why are the underclass the underclass? how do you define “the disadvantaged”?

By: suek

suek — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:23:02 +0000

>>Socialism is one strain of political theory that attempts to address this cultural inequality.>>

True – but capitalism is a better method, since it awards to each according to their input, not according to some judgment of who they _are_.

Socialism requires someone to be set up as the authority of who gets what … just exactly who gets what in order to achieve equality.

That doesn’t sound all that different from the inequality you describe.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:06:20 +0000

“Close, but not quite. We apply the reasoning to derive a conclusion that we agree is wrong. Hence, the reasoning was fallacious. It’s *because* Mike Devx probably agrees the conclusion is wrong, that he might reexamine his reasoning.”

What?? You leap from one assumption/assertion to another better than a gibbon swings through rainforest branches. This is more of your humor, right?

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:48:52 +0000

Re. Socialism, Zach says: No hyperbole there. In any case, the last we checked Pelosi wasn’t trying to tell widget makers how many widgets to make, so it turns out she is not a socialist, after all!
Don’t know much about the widgets industry, but Pelosi and her cohort does want government to tell society what kind of fuel they can produced and how much, what type of cars should be manufactured and where, what types of health care services should be provided and how much and at what price, what types of light bulbs we are allowed to use, what types of foods and beverages should be produced and consumed and at what price….
Zach says: Here’s a few noted historians you might check with.
Thanks for the list, Zach. In the interest of time, why don’t you give us a thumbnail sketch on how each defines “fascism” and how their opinions overlap with or differentiate from each other.

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:21:05 +0000

Charles Martel: I say your thinking is black and white. I prove it by stating something you never said and never would say. Therefore, I have proven your fallacious reasoning. Close, but not quite. We apply the reasoning to derive a conclusion that we agree is wrong. Hence, the reasoning was fallacious. It's *because* Mike Devx probably agrees the conclusion is wrong, that he might reexamine his reasoning. Ymarsakar, did you say something? It's hard to tell.