Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    coldseat

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    3,964
    Reaction score
    7,295
    Age
    49
    Location
    San Antonio
    Offline
    I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

    Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.
    Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.
    Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.
    Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

    This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



    My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".
     
    Last edited:
    I am saying the perspective depends on which people you might be talking about.
    There is a need to not forget, but to forgive. Let's move on! Let's all of us become individuals and not members of a group. Let's mingle on purpose and avoid the clique. It is not healthy to have that sensation as the cornerstone of one's existence
     
    Now I am confused.

    Are we supposed to assimilate to the culture or create a culture of individualism?

    Or is assimilation only for immigrants? And if only for immigrants, how do you know when you have assimilated enough to become an individual?
     
    I see free college tuition, National medicare, and social programs as part of the mission of capitalism to help others.
    :hahar:

    Mission of capitalism to help others? Man, that is pure gold comedy.

    The mission of capitalism is to increase profits, full stop. Anything that lowers profits is anathema to capitalism. That means free anything -- education, healthcare, social programs. In pure capitalism/free market those would NEVER fly.

    Technically full scale socialism can only be imposed by coercion and that worries me. The goal of most social democrats is to transition from a capitalist economy to socialism.
    LOL again. Your former statement is mostly laughable and the latter complete batshit insane.

    Full scale capitalism/free-market economy can only be imposed by force and coercion and taking advantage of others (predation). The goal of most conservatives is to transition from a blended economy to one that is controlled by the rich and powerful preying on the poor and economically weak, bringing about a new era of slavery.

    Sweden's experiment with democratic socialism failed decades ago. They felt they could go all out and established a socialist state, but along the way discovered it was not working. Since then they have wisely move to the center and embrace capitalism to finance social programs. All other Nordic nations do the same. They are primarily capitalists. The Swedes even privatized part of the social security investments, use school vouchers for religious schools, and contract out private companies to run some trains and transportation. That is too right wing for America.
    Sweden's experiment is working just fine. Democratic socialism is wonderful -- it's just that some people get triggered by the word "Socialism" in the title and lose all sense of rationality. Their mixed economy is closer to Democratic Socialism than it is to pure capitalism and that's not even debatable, although I'm sure you'll try to debate it anyway.
     
    Without unity there is no USA.
    There won't be a USA in relatively short order. There is no going back from this:




    This dude is Meghan McCain's (allegedly a 'moderate' Republican) husband. This is basically maintstream GOP now. So who are the "patriots" that he's calling to arms to fight the "enemies of everything this nation has ever been?"

    Reminds me of...




    If I had a fungible job I would be on the first boat to the UK or parts similar. I doubt this country lasts another 10-20 years until my projected retirement.
     
    :hahar:

    Mission of capitalism to help others? Man, that is pure gold comedy.

    The mission of capitalism is to increase profits, full stop. Anything that lowers profits is anathema to capitalism. That means free anything -- education, healthcare, social programs. In pure capitalism/free market those would NEVER fly.
    Free stuff is hard to come by because someone has to pay for it. There is no such thing as free. You are correct, capitalism is about profit. IN the pursuit of profit humanity benefits. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith. Do you understand the Adam Smith quote?
    LOL again. Your former statement is mostly laughable and the latter complete batshit insa
    Full scale capitalism/free-market economy can only be imposed by force and coercion and taking advantage of others (predation). The goal of most conservatives is to transition from a blended economy to one that is controlled by the rich and powerful preying on the poor and economically weak, bringing about a new era of slavery.
    That is the marxist point of view and you have learned it well. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith.
    Sweden's experiment is working just fine. Democratic socialism is wonderful -- it's just that some people get triggered by the word "Socialism" in the title and lose all sense of rationality. Their mixed economy is closer to Democratic Socialism than it is to pure capitalism and that's not even debatable, although I'm sure you'll try to debate it anyway.

    Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist​

     
    There won't be a USA in relatively short order. There is no going back from this:




    This dude is Meghan McCain's (allegedly a 'moderate' Republican) husband. This is basically maintstream GOP now. So who are the "patriots" that he's calling to arms to fight the "enemies of everything this nation has ever been?"

    Reminds me of...




    If I had a fungible job I would be on the first boat to the UK or parts similar. I doubt this country lasts another 10-20 years until my projected retirement.

    You do not like your country. That is obvious!
     
    Free stuff is hard to come by because someone has to pay for it. There is no such thing as free. You are correct, capitalism is about profit. IN the pursuit of profit humanity benefits. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith. Do you understand the Adam Smith quote?

    That is the marxist point of view and you have learned it well. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith.

    Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist​


    An article from 2015.. And from the only PM we have had who admired Trump lol (and spend government money on his own socks :ROFLMAO: )

    Our current PM is a social democrat AND a woman who told Trump in no uncertain terms that "No he could not purchase Greenland" Which as always when a woman turns him down made him sulk and cancel a state visit 5 days before he was scheduled to arrive
     
    An article from 2015.. And from the only PM we have had who admired Trump lol (and spend government money on his own socks :ROFLMAO: )

    Our current PM is a social democrat AND a woman who told Trump in no uncertain terms that "No he could not purchase Greenland" Which as always when a woman turns him down made him sulk and cancel a state visit 5 days before he was scheduled to arrive
    Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism is always coercive.
     
    IN the pursuit of profit humanity benefits.
    No, sometimes humanity benefits. But the upper class *always* benefits, and the poor are *always* taken advantage of.

    And *you* were the one who used the word “free” — I was just referring to what you said.
    It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith. Do you understand the Adam Smith quote?
    There’s that condescension again.

    You do realize there are many, many people here with the ability to comprehend things you think that you do, right?
    That is the marxist point of view and you have learned it well. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith.
    No, it isn’t. It’s truth. You haven’t learned that at all.

    Besides I was simply mocking your post about socialism.

    Posting the same quotes and the same videos over and over again does not make the point you think it does.
     
    No, sometimes humanity benefits. But the upper class *always* benefits, and the poor are *always* taken advantage of.

    There’s that condescension again.

    You do realize there are many, many people here with the ability to comprehend things you think that you do, right?

    No, it isn’t. It’s truth. You haven’t learned that at all.

    Posting the same quotes and the same videos over and over again does not make the point you think it does.
    I hate to sound condescending, but I believe you do not get the Adam Smith quote. Could you explain the quote?

    I do not deny the inequalities inherent to capitalism. However, this is what we have today in 2021. If you know of a better system let me know. I realize that you will say democratic socialism, however, the wealth to pay for the social programs is generated by capitalism.
     
    I hate to sound condescending, but I believe you do not get the Adam Smith quote. Could you explain the quote?
    Oh I get it. It just doesn’t make the point you think it does.
    I do not deny the inequalities inherent to capitalism. However, this is what we have today in 2021. If you know of a better system let me know. I realize that you will say democratic socialism, however, the wealth to pay for the social programs is generated by capitalism.
    Democratic Socialism is a far better system than full on capitalism and that’s not debatable. The thing you refuse to accept is that Democratic Socialism is a blend of capitalism/free market and socialism, and blending systems is always better than 100% one way or the other. Full-on capitalism will never work, just as full-on socialism your full-on communism will never work.
     
    @Paul :
    All I see is people repeating worn out recycled phrases

    Also @Paul :
    Democratic socialism is an oxymoron.

    Democratic socialism is an oxymoron.

    Democratic socialism is an oxymoron.

    And we already went over showing that to reach that conclusion you're simply, and wrongly, ignoring the democratic part, along with redefining socialism as suits whatever argument you're trying to push at the time, where one moment it's 'full-on in the most absolute sense or it's not socialism at all' and the next it's just 'a commune or a worker-owned business within a capitalist system'.

    You can keep repeating yourself regardless, but there's a point where it stops being perseverance and becomes masochism.
     
    @Paul :


    Also @Paul :






    And we already went over showing that to reach that conclusion you're simply, and wrongly, ignoring the democratic part, along with redefining socialism as suits whatever argument you're trying to push at the time, where one moment it's 'full-on in the most absolute sense or it's not socialism at all' and the next it's just 'a commune or a worker-owned business within a capitalist system'.

    You can keep repeating yourself regardless, but there's a point where it stops being perseverance and becomes masochism.

    Don't even try and quote how many times he's improperly used "strawman". Your PC's buffer doesn't have that much capacity. It would crash.
     
    Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism is always coercive.
    And no you don't really know what you are talking about!

    A social democrat is a center party with a social concience
     
    I feel like "capitalism" and "socialism" are being graded as an either/or, but programs with socialist roots are being graded on a sliding scale.
     
    Oh I get it. It just doesn’t make the point you think it does.
    Could you explain the quote please.
    Democratic Socialism is a far better system than full on capitalism and that’s not debatable. The thing you refuse to accept is that Democratic Socialism is a blend of capitalism/free market and socialism, and blending systems is always better than 100% one way or the other. Full-on capitalism will never work, just as full-on socialism your full-on communism will never work.
    I do not disagree with the above even though the term democratic socialism is incorrect.
    @Paul :


    Also @Paul :






    And we already went over showing that to reach that conclusion you're simply, and wrongly, ignoring the democratic part, along with redefining socialism as suits whatever argument you're trying to push at the time, where one moment it's 'full-on in the most absolute sense or it's not socialism at all' and the next it's just 'a commune or a worker-owned business within a capitalist system'.

    You can keep repeating yourself regardless, but there's a point where it stops being perseverance and becomes masochism.
    OK, let's do this in philosophical terms. Imagine a purely socialist Utopia. Is this possible without coercion?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom