Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-22-2012, 02:25 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
If you want total freedom you'd better head for deep wilderness. In this capitalist culture, you have to pay taxes, you have to go to school, you have to obey laws, you might be forced into the military, you may lose your land to imminent domain, you must have auto insurance and a license to drive . . . the list goes on. Is participation in any of that "optional"?

There are some things all citizens need, and there are some things a society needs from all its citizens. When such universal needs get incorporated into a nation's laws, social programs and economics, it can work well if done right. If a country tries to make mandatory that which does not qualify as a universal need, then they may be drifting toward authoritarianism.

Certainly you are aware of the well-off and democratic countries in the world who successfully socialize many of the basic human needs. Few of them are authoritarian, and many of them offer first rate services. Of course, there are also examples of socialized programs done poorly, but the fault there is bad management, not socialized programs.

At this point in world history, few people believe 100% socialism works. What has been most successful is democratic government with a blend of free market and socialized services.
You are not answering the question. You are attempting to justify. All socialized programs are authoritarian. Socialism does not exist without authoritarianism.

06-22-2012, 02:34 PM   #17
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You are not answering the question. You are attempting to justify. All socialized programs are authoritarian. Socialism does not exist without authoritarianism.
Mandatory is not the same thing as authoritarian.

Last edited by les3547; 06-22-2012 at 03:29 PM.
06-22-2012, 02:36 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,590
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Give me an example of a socialized system where civilian participation is optional and voluntary? What I mean by that is the citizen can elect not to participate in the social programs of the state.
This is silly--every society has rules and coercive mechanisms to enforce them. It's called "civilization".
06-22-2012, 02:41 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
However, the co-op is an example of a non-authoritarian, ie. non state, socialistic association that is voluntary and optional.
This is a private, profit seeking enterprise. It has socialistic attributes, but : An important strength of a cooperative for the farmer is that they retain the governance of the association, thereby ensuring they have ultimate ownership and control. one of the key elements of socialism is control by the larger body.

Control does not have to exist through physical possession. Governments have found that they are pretty incompetent at direct control. The current trend is control through regulation and taxation. It is like slavery in that regard. You don't have to physically "own" people to control them. You can enslave them financially.

06-22-2012, 02:42 PM   #20
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
This is silly--every society has rules and coercive mechanisms to enforce them. It's called "civilization".
Exactly what I was coming back to add to my post. The OP's aim seems nothing more than finding a way to apply the term "authoritarian" to socialism and socialistic programs, no matter how far the stretch in logic. The point is trivial.
06-22-2012, 02:50 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dadipentak Quote
This is silly--every society has rules and coercive mechanisms to enforce them. It's called "civilization".
No. Civilization evolved through increased cooperation not coercion. The more freedom people achieved the faster the civilization advanced. Government does have a role in protecting the lives and liberties of it citizens, but that is about it.

When you take away the rights of one man to benefit another man then you no longer have a free society.
06-22-2012, 02:56 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
Exactly what I was coming back to add to my post. The OP's aim seems nothing more than finding a way to apply the term "authoritarian" to socialism and socialistic programs, no matter how far the stretch in logic. The point is trivial.
I'm sure the people running the forced abortion program in China would agree with you. The point is trivial.

06-22-2012, 03:07 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
I suppose socialism in the sense of definition 2 b above could be combined with a democratically elected government, which is non-authoritarian by definition*. How well this would work is subject to speculation as it has not been tried in practice. If this could be further combined with a market where the state enterprises were subject to competition and elimination by failure in the same it might be quite viable. A key problem would be how the state enterprises were managed and how the proceeds were shared among workers, management and the state.

*authoritarian : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people (Authoritarian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
06-22-2012, 03:22 PM   #24
Veteran Member
riff's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,408
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Socialism does not exist without authoritarianism.
Nor does any politic system including democracy. If in doubt it try opting out of government policy in the land of the free.
Socialism from social creatures like mankind just makes sense.

I know a couple of faux news watchers who argue that fascism and socialism are the same. So we have the socialist Nazis and the fascist Cubans. Apparently they are both devil spawn so it really doesn't matter I suppose. Meanwhile the land of the free has 5% of the world population and 25% of the worlds prison inmates. They are the good guys.
06-22-2012, 03:32 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
...
When you take away the rights of one man to benefit another man then you no longer have a free society.
Then there can never be a 'free society'. Rights of individuals can be mutually exclusive, a society has rules (laws) for resolving such conflicts, but this can happen only by setting aside a right of one party or the other. For example, lets say a society considers everyone to have a right to life (1) and a right to make a living (2). If person A kills person B to take his money, there is a conflict between rights 1 and 2; in a sane society this would be resolved by considering right 1 more important than right 2 and hence person A would be in trouble even though this means taking away right 2.

Last edited by jolepp; 06-22-2012 at 04:29 PM.
06-22-2012, 04:15 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
All socialized programs are authoritarian. Socialism does not exist without authoritarianism.
It must be comforting to know the mind of god - no ambiguity, no doubts, only a dull mindless certainty.
06-22-2012, 06:16 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by riff Quote
Nor does any politic system including democracy. If in doubt it try opting out of government policy in the land of the free.
Socialism from social creatures like mankind just makes sense.

I know a couple of faux news watchers who argue that fascism and socialism are the same. So we have the socialist Nazis and the fascist Cubans. Apparently they are both devil spawn so it really doesn't matter I suppose. Meanwhile the land of the free has 5% of the world population and 25% of the worlds prison inmates. They are the good guys.
Mussolini, "Doctrine of Fascism" (1932)
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) started his political life as a socialist and in 1912, was appointed editor of Avanti, a leading socialist newspaper. During the Great War, Mussolini was expelled from the Socialist Party for advocating Italy’s entrance into battle. He organized the Fascist Party immediately following the war.
Mussolini was a socialist, but he was too hardcore for the Italian Party. He once said in a speech that Italian society had advanced to the point where individual rights were no longer necessary. The state and the individual were one. He was the polar opposite of Libertarian.

7. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose form the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

While Hitler himself was just a nationalist who used the socialist party, the Nazis were the socialist party of Germany.
National Socialist Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Nazi's were praised for offering "old age welfare" (Social Security), Public Healthcare, and Public Higher Education..... This is before they started killing people. If a few people have to die in the process of creating a better society, then so be it right? All in the name of someone's vision of a better world.
06-22-2012, 06:22 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
It must be comforting to know the mind of god - no ambiguity, no doubts, only a dull mindless certainty.
No. I just think that people should be allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not taking action to harm others. Sorry if you are opposed to people having the freedom to say 'no".
06-22-2012, 06:31 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,617
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jolepp Quote
Then there can never be a 'free society'. Rights of individuals can be mutually exclusive, a society has rules (laws) for resolving such conflicts, but this can happen only by setting aside a right of one party or the other. For example, lets say a society considers everyone to have a right to life (1) and a right to make a living (2). If person A kills person B to take his money, there is a conflict between rights 1 and 2; in a sane society this would be resolved by considering right 1 more important than right 2 and hence person A would be in trouble even though this means taking away right 2.
In conflicts involving physical harm between two parties then I agree. The government needs to take action. Nobody argues this point. Government should protect life, liberty, & property.

Socialism is authoritarian. People do not have the right to refuse to participate. Some people on this board think that is a small issue, but let's ask the young girl in the article who just had her 7-month old baby aborted against her will if she thinks it is a small issue. If she had the right to refuse to participate in the "social improvement program" what do you think she would say? Do you think this is a small issue to her? How do you think she feels about the authoritarian social policy?

I am not opposed to voluntary social programs. VOLUNTARY is the key word.

Last edited by Winder; 06-22-2012 at 07:38 PM.
06-22-2012, 07:06 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
This is a private, profit seeking enterprise. It has socialistic attributes, but : An important strength of a cooperative for the farmer is that they retain the governance of the association, thereby ensuring they have ultimate ownership and control. one of the key elements of socialism is control by the larger body.

Control does not have to exist through physical possession. Governments have found that they are pretty incompetent at direct control. The current trend is control through regulation and taxation. It is like slavery in that regard. You don't have to physically "own" people to control them. You can enslave them financially.
I totally disagree, you're arguing from a prior definition and not taking analogy or scale into account. If you can't envision something, you can't see it.

Just because something is private and profit seeking does not disqualify it from being an organization with organizational goals. Is there much difference between a country run for the private, profit seeking benefit of its rulers and a co-op, save the amount of coercion and conformity demanded?

A farmer joining the coop has to abide by its rules, and is 'coerced' into behaving accordingly. Of course this feels 'voluntary'... but the basic character is there, just the reasons and motivations are different. As they should be, to stand as an example of something not coercive yet socialistic.

Control doesn't only exist through physical... nor only through financial... the strongest control exists through ideology and belief.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
baby, child, feng, government, husband, income, ms, officials, yuan
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Creeping Socialism........???? stevewig General Talk 2 08-25-2011 09:55 AM
Abortion Rights Ambiguity les3547 General Talk 89 05-15-2011 05:31 PM
just for fun: football (US) socialism jeffkrol General Talk 6 12-05-2010 10:08 AM
Al Jazeera - Chinese authorities give a woman 8 months pregnant a forced abortion. Chwisch87 General Talk 0 10-20-2010 08:33 AM
Architecture A monument to socialism h0nda Post Your Photos! 3 09-16-2010 11:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top