Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[darkmule]

There are some tasks, like national defense, that pretty much everyone will agree should be handled by the state, because no one person or entity can provide military services effectively.

http://mises.org/document/2716

I have considered that, but frankly, am on the Hobbesian side of that issue.  Mostly.  We may end up in an improved world where Hobbes is wrong, but frankly, we're not there yet.

[1713996017]

1713996017

[1713996017]

1713996017

[myrkul]

There are some tasks, like national defense, that pretty much everyone will agree should be handled by the state, because no one person or entity can provide military services effectively.

http://mises.org/document/2716

I have considered that, but frankly, am on the Hobbesian side of that issue.  Mostly.  We may end up in an improved world where Hobbes is wrong, but frankly, we're not there yet.

Social contract is bunk.

If your neighbors drew up a document, without your input, stating that everyone in the neighborhood had to pay 1000 dollars every month or be evicted by force, would you consider that contract valid?

No. A contract is a voluntary meeting of minds, and no contract may be unilaterally ratified, nor applied to a third party.

[Minor Miner]

There are some tasks, like national defense, that pretty much everyone will agree should be handled by the state, because no one person or entity can provide military services effectively.

http://mises.org/document/2716

I have considered that, but frankly, am on the Hobbesian side of that issue.  Mostly.  We may end up in an improved world where Hobbes is wrong, but frankly, we're not there yet.

Social contract is bunk.

If your neighbors drew up a document, without your input, stating that everyone in the neighborhood had to pay 1000 dollars every month or be evicted by force, would you consider that contract valid?

No. A contract is a voluntary meeting of minds, and no contract may be unilaterally ratified, nor applied to a third party.

just read my sig and look up what aesop knew 2800 years ago.

[Jason]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Anybody think it would stay even, if you distributed all the US wealth the way he showed?

Or would it shake right back out again to that curve?

I thought it was interesting to see that it is much worse than most Americans believe.

I have no doubt the point it is at today hovers around some sort of point of equilibrium.  What is interesting is that this point of equilibrium appears to be dependent at least in part on the way the society is organized.  For example, the wealth gap is not nearly so extreme in other developed countries, especially those which would be considered socialist.

A wealth gap is good in that it provides some incentive to work hard to advance oneself, but at what point does it become destructive?  Is there an optimal wealth distribution that maximizes social welfare?  If so, does it justify a certain amount of forced redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all?

Do the needs of the many, in fact, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?  There are those who believe this to be true as there are systems at work in the world today, sometimes (mistakenly) called, "capitalism," which cause the forced redistribution of wealth away from the poor and middle class (many) and into the hands of the rich (few)?

Finally, will anyone change their politics as a result of reading this or anything else in this entire thread?

[darkmule]

There are some tasks, like national defense, that pretty much everyone will agree should be handled by the state, because no one person or entity can provide military services effectively.

http://mises.org/document/2716

I have considered that, but frankly, am on the Hobbesian side of that issue.  Mostly.  We may end up in an improved world where Hobbes is wrong, but frankly, we're not there yet.

Social contract is bunk.

If your neighbors drew up a document, without your input, stating that everyone in the neighborhood had to pay 1000 dollars every month or be evicted by force, would you consider that contract valid?

Sounds like what happens in any homeowner's association these days.  And no, I wouldn't live in such an HOA, because they are a total pain in the ass run by control freaks.

But if I did, am I a millionaire?  Am I a billionaire?  Is $1,000 completely insignificant to me?  In that event, I don't give a shit, and just pay because it's pocket change.  And if it does piss me off enough, I buy an interest in the HOA so I control it, or a cartel I'm involved in controls it.

But really, you're describing something like a homeowner's association, one of the most abusive organizations most people live under that is not a government, and I avoid those like the plague.  So the answer is no, I don't consider that contract valid.

[myrkul]

There are some tasks, like national defense, that pretty much everyone will agree should be handled by the state, because no one person or entity can provide military services effectively.

http://mises.org/document/2716

I have considered that, but frankly, am on the Hobbesian side of that issue.  Mostly.  We may end up in an improved world where Hobbes is wrong, but frankly, we're not there yet.

Social contract is bunk.

If your neighbors drew up a document, without your input, stating that everyone in the neighborhood had to pay 1000 dollars every month or be evicted by force, would you consider that contract valid?

Sounds like what happens in any homeowner's association these days.  And no, I wouldn't live in such an HOA, because they are a total pain in the ass run by control freaks.

But if I did, am I a millionaire?  Am I a billionaire?  Is $1,000 completely insignificant to me?  In that event, I don't give a shit, and just pay because it's pocket change.  And if it does piss me off enough, I buy an interest in the HOA so I control it, or a cartel I'm involved in controls it.

But really, you're describing something like a homeowner's association, one of the most abusive organizations most people live under that is not a government, and I avoid those like the plague.  So the answer is no, I don't consider that contract valid.

Ironically, HOAs are voluntary. You agree to whatever restrictions they choose to apply in their neighborhood before you move in. I've lived in one, and they wouldn't even let me finalize the lease until I had signed. So, while I would never live in one again, for the same reasons you avoid them, I'm at least OK with their existence.

The example I gave you was akin to a HOA suddenly deciding you were part of their neighborhood, and not giving you any say in the matter. It's also analogous to getting that first property tax bill from the state. It's a "social contract," one you never signed, never agreed to, but they apply to you anyway.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think socialists should probably stay away from bitcoin if that is the case, namely due to how difficult it is to tax. Especially if people begin trading bitcoin over the tor network.

By investing in or even mining bitcoins, socialists would be contributing to the decline of socialism. You'd basically see a return to the early days of the US where they relied upon the taxes of sales of certain goods. Services would be unable to be taxed effectively, and income for large corporate entities would be hard to tax (which would be a good thing IMO as corporations as it is don't really pay any taxes - they just push the expense on to the customer.)

do you know that some people, actually wants to pay taxes because they supports the system?

You said you live in denmark earlier, correct? You know denmark is one of many countries who spends more than it brings in. It is dependent upon borrowing. Should there be a global deep economic recession, that system you support will collapse.

I don't know how likely denmark is to have a balanced budget any time soon, but france, england, the US, and japan are all heavy borrowers (Japan is by far the worst) and when that house of cards comes falling down (this is inevitable by the way, my guess is sometime between 8 and 30 years, and the world will place the blame squarely on whatever political party holds the US white house, even though it is a global problem.) Your social programs will collapse along with it. The reality is, we really can't afford to do these things, taxes or no taxes.

[kokjo]

I think socialists should probably stay away from bitcoin if that is the case, namely due to how difficult it is to tax. Especially if people begin trading bitcoin over the tor network.

By investing in or even mining bitcoins, socialists would be contributing to the decline of socialism. You'd basically see a return to the early days of the US where they relied upon the taxes of sales of certain goods. Services would be unable to be taxed effectively, and income for large corporate entities would be hard to tax (which would be a good thing IMO as corporations as it is don't really pay any taxes - they just push the expense on to the customer.)

do you know that some people, actually wants to pay taxes because they supports the system?

You said you live in denmark earlier, correct? You know denmark is one of many countries who spends more than it brings in. It is dependent upon borrowing. Should there be a global deep economic recession, that system you support will collapse.

I don't know how likely denmark is to have a balanced budget any time soon, but france, england, the US, and japan are all heavy borrowers (Japan is by far the worst) and when that house of cards comes falling down (this is inevitable by the way, my guess is sometime between 8 and 30 years, and the world will place the blame squarely on whatever political party holds the US white house, even though it is a global problem.) Your social programs will collapse along with it. The reality is, we really can't afford to do these things, taxes or no taxes.

number disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

and there are many non-socialistic countries that have a way higher debt/GDP ratio, than Denmark. i think we are doing pretty good.

[myrkul]

I think socialists should probably stay away from bitcoin if that is the case, namely due to how difficult it is to tax. Especially if people begin trading bitcoin over the tor network.

By investing in or even mining bitcoins, socialists would be contributing to the decline of socialism. You'd basically see a return to the early days of the US where they relied upon the taxes of sales of certain goods. Services would be unable to be taxed effectively, and income for large corporate entities would be hard to tax (which would be a good thing IMO as corporations as it is don't really pay any taxes - they just push the expense on to the customer.)

do you know that some people, actually wants to pay taxes because they supports the system?

You said you live in denmark earlier, correct? You know denmark is one of many countries who spends more than it brings in. It is dependent upon borrowing. Should there be a global deep economic recession, that system you support will collapse.

I don't know how likely denmark is to have a balanced budget any time soon, but france, england, the US, and japan are all heavy borrowers (Japan is by far the worst) and when that house of cards comes falling down (this is inevitable by the way, my guess is sometime between 8 and 30 years, and the world will place the blame squarely on whatever political party holds the US white house, even though it is a global problem.) Your social programs will collapse along with it. The reality is, we really can't afford to do these things, taxes or no taxes.

number disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

and there are many non-socialistic countries that have a way higher debt/GDP ratio, than Denmark. i think we are doing pretty good.

Compared to Cyprus? You're doing AWESOME. Compared to say, Switzerland, not so much.

"Only" 200 million in the hole each year is only "doing pretty good" when compared to the countries which are pitching over and diving nose-first into debt.

And with tax revenues close to 50% of GDP, you're fucking your economy. Not to mention the VAT... How much is a cup of coffee?

Not that the US is a shining example of fiscal responsibility.... but, damn.

[Geddi]

I get irritated about people arguing about socialism versus capitalism, as if there were two warring camps, one insisting a hammer is the only tool that can be used for anything, and another camp insisting that only a screwdriver should ever be used for any task.  

You should see the handle of my screwdriver.  

Maybe buy a hammer, to shape the handle when it wears.

From http://mises.org/document/2716 :

There is no contradiction or even tension between liberty and security. If free enterprise works well in one sector, it can work well in other sectors too.

But seriously, Unions, mutual aid groups, charities, etc. would all have a place, even in an AnCap society. Not everyone realizes that.

My thoughts exactly. I can't understand how eg. free market healthcare could work properly. Ever.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think socialists should probably stay away from bitcoin if that is the case, namely due to how difficult it is to tax. Especially if people begin trading bitcoin over the tor network.

By investing in or even mining bitcoins, socialists would be contributing to the decline of socialism. You'd basically see a return to the early days of the US where they relied upon the taxes of sales of certain goods. Services would be unable to be taxed effectively, and income for large corporate entities would be hard to tax (which would be a good thing IMO as corporations as it is don't really pay any taxes - they just push the expense on to the customer.)

do you know that some people, actually wants to pay taxes because they supports the system?

You said you live in denmark earlier, correct? You know denmark is one of many countries who spends more than it brings in. It is dependent upon borrowing. Should there be a global deep economic recession, that system you support will collapse.

I don't know how likely denmark is to have a balanced budget any time soon, but france, england, the US, and japan are all heavy borrowers (Japan is by far the worst) and when that house of cards comes falling down (this is inevitable by the way, my guess is sometime between 8 and 30 years, and the world will place the blame squarely on whatever political party holds the US white house, even though it is a global problem.) Your social programs will collapse along with it. The reality is, we really can't afford to do these things, taxes or no taxes.

number disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

and there are many non-socialistic countries that have a way higher debt/GDP ratio, than Denmark. i think we are doing pretty good.

What number? You gave me a page with a bunch of non-specific numbers. I see this number:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/government-budget

That and Denmark's debt is 74% of its GDP. That is a pretty high number.

And what are these non-socialistic countries are you talking about? The US is probably one of the biggest offenders as they spend a ton of money on social programs.

[kokjo]

I think socialists should probably stay away from bitcoin if that is the case, namely due to how difficult it is to tax. Especially if people begin trading bitcoin over the tor network.

By investing in or even mining bitcoins, socialists would be contributing to the decline of socialism. You'd basically see a return to the early days of the US where they relied upon the taxes of sales of certain goods. Services would be unable to be taxed effectively, and income for large corporate entities would be hard to tax (which would be a good thing IMO as corporations as it is don't really pay any taxes - they just push the expense on to the customer.)

do you know that some people, actually wants to pay taxes because they supports the system?

You said you live in denmark earlier, correct? You know denmark is one of many countries who spends more than it brings in. It is dependent upon borrowing. Should there be a global deep economic recession, that system you support will collapse.

I don't know how likely denmark is to have a balanced budget any time soon, but france, england, the US, and japan are all heavy borrowers (Japan is by far the worst) and when that house of cards comes falling down (this is inevitable by the way, my guess is sometime between 8 and 30 years, and the world will place the blame squarely on whatever political party holds the US white house, even though it is a global problem.) Your social programs will collapse along with it. The reality is, we really can't afford to do these things, taxes or no taxes.

number disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

and there are many non-socialistic countries that have a way higher debt/GDP ratio, than Denmark. i think we are doing pretty good.

What number? You gave me a page with a bunch of non-specific numbers. I see this number:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/government-budget

That and Denmark's debt is 74% of its GDP. That is a pretty high number.

And what are these non-socialistic countries are you talking about? The US is probably one of the biggest offenders as they spend a ton of money on social programs.

the number disagrees with you: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/government-debt-to-gdp

[liberty90]

Polska - Poland (communist at these times)
Hiszpania - Spain (firstly reactionary dictatorship, later democracy)
GDP per cap in 1990 US dollars



Central and Eastern Europe has even better reasons to fear socialism, thank you

[claire]

All of this discussion and it comes down to two words: freedom and laziness. You cannot have a utopia without a lot of rules.

Also, people are lazy. If a person can get something for free instead of working for it then he will try to get it for free.

[myrkul]

But seriously, Unions, mutual aid groups, charities, etc. would all have a place, even in an AnCap society. Not everyone realizes that.

My thoughts exactly. I can't understand how eg. free market healthcare could work properly. Ever.

Was working fine, before the government stepped in and "fixed" it:
http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

[antibanker]

All of this discussion and it comes down to two words: freedom and laziness. You cannot have a utopia without a lot of rules.

Also, people are lazy. If a person can get something for free instead of working for it then he will try to get it for free.

that is how landowners & landlords make their money.

[myrkul]

All of this discussion and it comes down to two words: freedom and laziness. You cannot have a utopia without a lot of rules.

Also, people are lazy. If a person can get something for free instead of working for it then he will try to get it for free.

that is how landowners & landlords make their money.

Funny, I thought it was via the improvements on a piece of land, and a voluntary agreement to give up the ability to use that land (and it's improvements) for a period of time in exchange for monetary compensation.

[antibanker]

landlords and capital owners can just sit lazily on the sofa waiting for their money to double from other peoples work.

[Minor Miner]

landlords and capital owners can just sit lazily on the sofa waiting for their money to double from other peoples work.

maybe you should start doing some work instead of posting racist comments on here all day.

[kokjo]

landlords and capital owners can just sit lazily on the sofa waiting for their money to double from other peoples work.

maybe you should start doing some work instead of posting racist comments on here all day.

maybe you should learn to read, his comment was not racist(this time at least).