Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[kokjo]

kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed.  

by succeed do you mean survive or grow?

[1714972453]

1714972453

[714]

They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.

There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed.

My my, we really need to hurt all those bad socialists who hate the hard-working good people like us, and long as were going right off the rails and back to the half-witted nursery, God told me to skin you alive, I have to do it, Jeebus said so.

[kokjo]

According to Kokjo's vague definition, most of us are socialists. How lovely.

What definition? I didn't even see one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42298.msg643320#msg643320

in that post i did only claim that socialism COULD WORK without a central authority. it is not a definition of socialism.

[Harvey]

According to Kokjo's vague definition, most of us are socialists. How lovely.

What definition? I didn't even see one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42298.msg643320#msg643320

in that post i did only claim that socialism COULD WORK without a central authority. it is not a definition of socialism.

Ah, but you have just defined it --in your view, rather-- whether you consider it a definition or not.

[Bind]

This is starting to be like debating with a drunk or a child. How close am I ??

You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.

you too

What does that even mean?? Unlike you, I have demonstrated through my posts that I know precisely what socialism is in its 3 historic forms, so your irrational comment makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like a child rant, "I know you are but what am I?".

If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ??

it does not need to be "owned or regulated".

Of course it has to be owned and regulated. How else will it be produced, distributed, and exchanged?? How would you prevent someone from taking all of any of the resources or products?? The honor system?? You are being a bit naive.

Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??

Simple, people decides to do so.

Then those people you mentioned are the central authority who would be owning , controlling, and/or regulating. Again you are being naive to even suggest the possibility of everyone agreeing on a community scale, let alone regional, national, or worldwide level. How would you stop someone from taking it all or more than their fair share?? Its theirs right?? How do you decide the criteria by which it is decided what their fair share is?? Body weight?? Each person gets an equal amount?? Who is the decider of that criteria?? I can imaging a 450 pound fat guy fighting like hell and justifying for alot more "resources" than a 90 pound petite womanor a child. How do you stop infighting when resources and products get low?? Maybe by ownership and regulation?? Force?? If everyone owns a cornfield how do you make decisions on who gets what??  By regulation. Who regulates? Who uses force? Ownership takes care of all that and more. I regulate by my decision to trade, barter, or sell its products. Your utopian dream is a nightmare that will never exist. If someone has more force than you, they will justify that their fair share will be alot more than yours. Dont be naive.

and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ??

either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority)

Then the strongest and fittest are the central authority by sheer force. They make the rules and enforce them by force. Sound familiar??

Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??

i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion.

and your clarification has been rebutted and done away with in my previous posts. You have the amount of rights you can protect through force if they are infringed upon. I know I can protect what I have, or will die trying. My kids are worth it.
 

It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.


They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.

have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"?

O course these and every other person is of some use in a society or community. Thats where trade and barter happen. Each person brings something to the table. Others dont own it. If you do not contribute, your church, charitable group, or family and friends help take care of you ... or you die.

My proof of claim is common sense. There was alot of common sense back then. My proof is also YOU. If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need?? If you knew you would be killed for unlawfully killing someone else, would you still kill them?? If you knew you would be castrated for raping a woman, would you still rape her?? If you knew that you would be shot and killed for infringing on me or my property, would you still infringe on it, or would you develop labor and trade relationships to get what you need to survive??

your arguments seems flawed...

neither of us truly believes that.


edit: and i needed to add my support for for following:

kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed. 

Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.

I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.

I wonder how thats supposed to work.

Ah ... the computers will do it all !

The closet zeitgeisters and venus project entheusiasts are now uncovered !

[Bind]

There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed.

Really?? Would you infringe on me knowing that there was a high likelihood of me killing you for doing it. Of course not, unless you have mental defect(s). The movies are not very accurate in terms of true history, so you really shouldnt be basing your debates on them. Instead use some common sense. The vast majority of the criminal activity, tyranny, and oppression of rights comes from the state/church, the king, the pharoh, the rulers. Not the common man under common law with an eye for an eye mentality, and rarely did crime ocurr within a community. Sure there were rare ocassions of outsiders coming in, only to be cast out, or they outsiders developed trade partnerships or welcomed them in kind for their participation.

My my, we really need to hurt all those bad socialists who hate the hard-working good people like us, and long as were going right off the rails and back to the half-witted nursery, God told me to skin you alive, I have to do it, Jeebus said so.

That would be unlawfully infringing on you. I would not be participating in such endeavors, however the church-connected state would, and did frequently.

[kokjo]

This is starting to be like debating with a drunk or a child. How close am I ??

don't go after the man but the ball. im not drunk or a child.

You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.

you too

What does that even mean?? Unlike you, I have demonstrated through my posts that I know precisely what socialism is in its 3 historic forms, so your irrational comment makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like a child rant, "I know you are but what am I?".

your comments also makes very little sense. you may have described how some forms of socialism works, but seems not to be able to grasp how it could possibly work without a central authority. go wikipedia socialism, and go the part about anarchism.

If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ??

it does not need to be "owned or regulated".

Of course it has to be owned and regulated. How else will it be produced, distributed, and exchanged?? How would you prevent someone from taking all of any of the resources or products?? The honor system?? You are being a bit naive.

the honor system would work fine, because the majority would dislike the ones who took too much(it doesn't mean that there need to be certain rules about what is "too much")

Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??

Simple, people decides to do so.

Then those people you mentioned are the central authority who would be owning , controlling, and/or regulating. Again you are being naive to even suggest the possibility of everyone agreeing on a community scale, let alone regional, national, or worldwide level. How would you stop someone from taking it all or more than their fair share?? Its theirs right?? How do you decide the criteria by which it is decided what their fair share is?? Body weight?? Each person gets an equal amount?? Who is the decider of that criteria?? I can imaging a 450 pound fat guy fighting like hell and justifying for alot more "resources" than a 90 pound petite womanor a child. How do you stop infighting when resources and products get low?? Maybe by ownership and regulation?? Force?? If everyone owns a cornfield how do you make decisions on who gets what??  By regulation. Who regulates? Who uses force? Ownership takes care of all that and more. I regulate by my decision to trade, barter, or sell its products. Your utopian dream is a nightmare that will never exist. If someone has more force than you, they will justify that their fair share will be alot more than yours. Dont be naive.

if you really want a owner, make it "the public", there does not need to be specific rules about when someone is taking too much.

and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ??

either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority)

Then the strongest and fittest are the central authority by sheer force. They make the rules and enforce them by force. Sound familiar??

it always have been this way, and it always will be this way. if the rules say that anyone is free to do what they like, it needs to be enforced. tease rules can not enforce themselfs.

Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??

i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion.

and your clarification has been rebutted and done away with in my previous posts. You have the amount of rights you can protect through force if they are infringed upon. I know I can protect what I have, or will die trying. My kids are worth it.

then try dieing, if the majority is against you, there is nothing you can do about it.

It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.


They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.

have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"?

O course these and every other person is of some use in a society or community. Thats where trade and barter happen. Each person brings something to the table. Others dont own it. If you do not contribute, your church, charitable group, or family and friends help take care of you ... or you die.

My proof of claim is common sense. There was alot of common sense back then. My proof is also YOU. If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need?? If you knew you would be killed for unlawfully killing someone else, would you still kill them?? If you knew you would be castrated for raping a woman, would you still rape her?? If you knew that you would be shot and killed for infringing on me or my property, would you still infringe on it, or would you develop labor and trade relationships to get what you need to survive??

now you are naive. the troubles often does not come from the comunity it self, but from the outside, because they have something too gain from you. thats why kings was choosing, beacuse people needed security from outside force. they got together 'elected' a leader, that was sovereign, in that way that people put fiath in him, when he told them what to do. to uphold their society's security.

your arguments seems flawed...

neither of us truly believes that.

oh, yes i do.


edit: and i needed to add my support for for following:

kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed. 

Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.

I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.

i would for the common good. i does not just want to sit down and make nothing, it would just be boring. people would realize that they need to work, becuase if anyone just sad down, there would not come food on the table.

also innovating is simple: people thinks its funny to explore and discover. their are often doing it not for profit, but for fun.
example: G.H. Hardy a mathematician who found it fun to do useless math, and even if it was useless at his time of living, his number theory have come to great help if making modern cryptography work. he did something he called clear mathematics(not sure if thats the best translation, but anyway im danish.) which was essentially useless math.

[JA37]

If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need??

Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.

I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.

So you're saying that there aren't any thieves in the Arab countries where they punish thieves by cutting their hand off?
And there's the death penalty in Texas. I can safely assume that no murders are ever committed there?

Funny thing about innovation. It works best under no stress conditions. Where you actually have the time to sit and think about how to do things. Not when you have to figure out where the next meal should come from. Sounds like something a socialist state is better at providing, don't you think?

And are you seriously suggesting that the whole country of Germany are lazy people? They're pretty socialist. Good thing that they are so lazy then, because if they weren't they'd probably take over the world, seeing how they are one of the best working economies in Europe, and have been for some time.

[bb113]

What does it mean that Germany has "one of the best working economies in Europe"? I.e what metrics are you using?

[714]

There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed.

Really?? Would you infringe on me knowing that there was a high likelihood of me killing you for doing it.

What's it like to live in fear?

[anu]

I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.

But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?

No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg

That shoud be reason enough.

[kokjo]

I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.

But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?

No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg

That shoud be reason enough.

anything you prefix with national- will end this way. national socialism is just the unshort form of Nazism..

[JA37]

What does it mean that Germany has "one of the best working economies in Europe"? I.e what metrics are you using?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,797895,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/german-economy-strengthens-amid-europes-gloom/article2255727/

Feel free to read it yourself. Germany, despite being a socialistic nightmare with lazy citizens and zero innovation, actually does quite well. There are challenges ahead, but that's true for every single country on the planet, one way or another.

[bb113]

So your metric is something like "the number of positive news articles"....jk. I will check it out, keeping my eye out for politician defined terms as I go.

[JA37]

I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.

But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?

No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg

That shoud be reason enough.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.

[anu]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.

Socialism entails planning. That includes planning of your career, your life and maybe even your spouse - Plato's pretty idea of an ideal state. Hayek made a pretty good point that "some socialism" is not stable. Only bad thing, some egocentric, individualistic, freedom loving people don't like their life planned by commitees - to the point that they actively resist. So society must educate them. With force, if need be. And dispose of them if they can't be cured. If many like you don't see that slippery slope to totalitarianism, we'll just slide down again.

But then, why not? Why not risking to sacrifice another couple hundred million on the altar of socialism? Possibly socialism doesn't go bad in all instances. Swedish socialism didn't, but Swedish socialism wasn't/isn't complete yet. But from what I hear, the Swedes are well on their way to their own totalitarian nightmare now. Let's see what a socialist Feminism gonna look like in the real world.

[Harvey]

You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.

[JA37]

You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.

Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.

[Harvey]

You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.

Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.

In this case, yes. You can't have a mix of freedom and tyranny. You can provide the illusion of freedom though, if that meets your definition of grey.

[JA37]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.

Socialism entails planning. That includes planning of your career, your life and maybe even your spouse - Plato's pretty idea of an ideal state. Hayek made a pretty good point that "some socialism" is not stable. Only bad thing, some egocentric, individualistic, freedom loving people don't like their life planned by commitees - to the point that they actively resist. So society must educate them. With force, if need be. And dispose of them if they can't be cured. If many like you don't see that slippery slope to totalitarianism, we'll just slide down again.

But then, why not? Why not risking to sacrifice another couple hundred million on the altar of socialism? Possibly socialism doesn't go bad in all instances. Swedish socialism didn't, but Swedish socialism wasn't/isn't complete yet. But from what I hear, the Swedes are well on their way to their own totalitarian nightmare now. Let's see what a socialist Feminism gonna look like in the real world.

Where are the death camps in Sweden, Norway, Denmark then? Or are there no individualistic, freedom loving people there? Do you actually believe that all Finns have their lives planned by a committee? That the German state selects the spouse for them? Are you insane?

Unchecked, anything will go bad. That goes for socialism as well as capitalism.
What's the totalitarian nightmare Swedes have to look forward to? I must not have kept up with current events.