Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

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?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

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".

 

[V Chip]

Could you explain the quote please.

If I do will you explain why you rail against Democratic Socialism even though you claim to believe in most of its tenets?

I do not disagree with the above even though the term democratic socialism is incorrect.

No, it isn’t.

 

[UriUT]

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?

Did we just end the culture war? End of the Culture War day parade w/ confetti in NYC??? I'll be down for a trip.

 

[RobF]

OK, let's do this in philosophical terms. Imagine a purely socialist Utopia. Is this possible without coercion?

Yes, obviously. Because we'd imagine that those in said utopia are choosing to adopt those socialist principles.

That said, and to skip to the end, as @samiam5211 already suggested, "There is no system of organizing humans that does not involve coercion." While I think that's slightly overstated generally, history and the present day would suggest that to be accurate on a national scale. You've already acknowledged that taxation involves coercion, for example. Generally, any democratic state requires coercion, because, even when we're not envisaging it as a full-blown tyranny of the majority (or even minority where systems of representation give a minority majority power), a democracy does not represent unanimity.

But you're not railing against democracy as a whole, which implies you accept that level of coercion. But that's the level of coercion in democratic socialism; it's dependent on democratic consent.

So either you're railing against democracy as a whole, because coercion, or you accept the level of coercion implicit in democratic representation, in which case democratic socialism fundamentally has that same level of coercion and is also acceptable.

 

[Paul]

Yes, obviously. Because we'd imagine that those in said utopia are choosing to adopt those socialist principles.

How about those that are entrepreneurial and want to have a business for profit? Will they be allowed to have a business?

That said, and to skip to the end, as @samiam5211 already suggested, "There is no system of organizing humans that does not involve coercion." While I think that's slightly overstated generally, history and the present day would suggest that to be accurate on a national scale. You've already acknowledged that taxation involves coercion, for example. Generally, any democratic state requires coercion, because, even when we're not envisaging it as a full-blown tyranny of the majority (or even minority where systems of representation give a minority majority power), a democracy does not represent unanimity.

We already covered that. Sure, democratic nations exert some coercion in demanding taxes, but that is not excuse to establish an authoritarian socialist state.

But you're not railing against democracy as a whole, which implies you accept that level of coercion. But that's the level of coercion in democratic socialism; it's dependent on democratic consent.

The likelihood that 100% if citizens will want socialism is unrealistic. You will always have free spirits that want to create a business.

So either you're railing against democracy as a whole, because coercion, or you accept the level of coercion implicit in democratic representation, in which case democratic socialism fundamentally has that same level of coercion and is also acceptable.

Democracy is rule by mob. Imagine a democratic nation that decided gay men needed to be sentenced to death. How is that democracy working for you?

It is true that every country has some socialist enterprises at the federal, state or local levels. For instance, the U.S. government owns Amtrak, and the city of Flint, Mich., owns its water department. Arguably, both would do much better in private hands.

 

[UriUT]

Oh I get it. It just doesn’t make the point you think it does.

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.

He wants us to return to the end of the 19th century when there wasn't a 40 hour work week, child labor, and the constant cyclical panics driven by speculative investor, etc. [whispers] those ... are ... socialist ideas ....far from pure capitalism.

 

[Paul]

He wants us to return to the end of the 19th century when there wasn't a 40 hour work week, child labor, and the constant cyclical panics driven by speculative investor, etc. [whispers] those ... are ... socialist ideas ....far from pure capitalism.

Strawman

 

[UriUT]

Yes, obviously. Because we'd imagine that those in said utopia are choosing to adopt those socialist principles.

That said, and to skip to the end, as @samiam5211 already suggested, "There is no system of organizing humans that does not involve coercion." While I think that's slightly overstated generally, history and the present day would suggest that to be accurate on a national scale. You've already acknowledged that taxation involves coercion, for example. Generally, any democratic state requires coercion, because, even when we're not envisaging it as a full-blown tyranny of the majority (or even minority where systems of representation give a minority majority power), a democracy does not represent unanimity.

But you're not railing against democracy as a whole, which implies you accept that level of coercion. But that's the level of coercion in democratic socialism; it's dependent on democratic consent.

So either you're railing against democracy as a whole, because coercion, or you accept the level of coercion implicit in democratic representation, in which case democratic socialism fundamentally has that same level of coercion and is also acceptable.

Another groundhog's day. I do have my coffee ready though! So let's begin.

Firstly, this concept of coercion is ridiculous. The misunderstanding..his...is beyond just the notion of not understanding socialism. It dwells deep in the concept of rule of law and the social contract. If two parties agree on a contract, it ceases to be coercion...by definition. Now someone will tell me, "hey, i was born into this system, I never signed any agreement". True, but the agreement was implied. If you don't like it, you can easily move to some uncivilized jungle. Till then the rule of law will be implicitly applied whether u were born into or not. And in a democratic system, the rule is agreed upon further. That is not coercion.

To me, this flinging around of coercion is just sour grapes because they didn't get what they want. I don't want to eat my broccoli wah wah. Well you are free to leave the house little child.

 

[UriUT]

Strawman

What mean this word. In my country, we no know of this word. A man of straw? Oh, like one in that movie...the wizard of Bazar!

Ok, seriously, this reply has me intellectually intrigued. It's profound on so many levels. Please do elaborate.

 

[Dragon]

Could you explain the quote please.

I do not disagree with the above even though the term democratic socialism is incorrect.

OK, let's do this in philosophical terms. Imagine a purely socialist Utopia. Is this possible without coercion?

How about those that are entrepreneurial and want to have a business for profit? Will they be allowed to have a business?

If they don't infringe on the rights of others yes. People have the right to refuse to accept a job if they are not satisfied with what they are receiving in return, They are after all "selling" their labor

The same goes for the rights of the communities. They have the rigth to clean air and water so a business which infringes on that rigth should not be allowed,,

We already covered that. Sure, democratic nations exert some coercion in demanding taxes, but that is not excuse to establish an authoritarian socialist state.

We're talking about DEMOCRATIC Socialism. The people chose that in free and fair elections. One (wo)man/ one vote, No restrictions except for citizentship,
All are enrolled on the voter lists at 18 automatically. No gerrymandering, People votes by County and all votes counts, It is not a winner take it all but representation based on voter spread. So if a party get 40% of the votes, they will get 40% of the seats.

The likelihood that 100% if citizens will want socialism is unrealistic. You will always have free spirits that want to create a business.

And yet - 100% capitalism would not be able to meet the same requirements but that does not bother you at all...

Democracy is rule by mob. Imagine a democratic nation that decided gay men needed to be sentenced to death. How is that democracy working for you?

Well - no. But your last "dictator in spe" sure tried to remove all rigths from LGB. Democracy prevailed when people got so fed up by the "mini-dictator" that they voted him out of office.

It is true that every country has some socialist enterprises at the federal, state or local levels. For instance, the U.S. government owns Amtrak, and the city of Flint, Mich., owns its water department. Arguably, both would do much better in private hands.

No - history shows clearly that when it comes to environmental issues private companies are by far the worst offenders.

 

[RobF]

You're kind of all over the place here, Paul.

How about those that are entrepreneurial and want to have a business for profit? Will they be allowed to have a business?

It's an imaginary socialist utopia. We're imagining that they don't want to have a business for personal profit. Because we're imagining that they've consented to the principles of socialism, and are happy creating and running a worker-owned business for shared profit, for example. Or maybe there are no businesses because the means of production are AI and robots and humans are just kicking it back and taking it easy. Whatever, it's an imaginary socialist utopia.

We already covered that. Sure, democratic nations exert some coercion in demanding taxes, but that is not excuse to establish an authoritarian socialist state.

Good thing we're talking about democratic socialism then. Look, you can't just swap 'democratic' in 'democratic socialism' with 'authoritarian' and pretend you've made a point. That's about as desperate as it gets.

The likelihood that 100% if citizens will want socialism is unrealistic. You will always have free spirits that want to create a business.

And we've got 'free spirits' that don't want to pay taxes, and/or don't want them to go towards wars, etc., etc., etc., but you seem fine with that.

Democracy is rule by mob. Imagine a democratic nation that decided gay men needed to be sentenced to death. How is that democracy working for you?

And now you're completely undermining your entire premise again. To remind you, you're claiming that 'Democratic socialism is an oxymoron' because 'socialism is always coercive', but now you're stating that democracy itself is "rule by mob", in which case, even if we take your wildly incorrect notions of democratic socialism, "democratic socialism" still wouldn't be an oxymoron, because democracy itself is coercive.

It is true that every country has some socialist enterprises at the federal, state or local levels. For instance, the U.S. government owns Amtrak, and the city of Flint, Mich., owns its water department. Arguably, both would do much better in private hands.

Gosh, yes, there are socialist enterprises in every country. We should have a name for people who support expanding those socialist elements within a democratic system. Hmmm, they'd be democratic, and they'd be socialists, what could we call them...

 

[Paul]

Good thing we're talking about democratic socialism then. Look, you can't just swap 'democratic' in 'democratic socialism' with 'authoritarian' and pretend you've made a point. That's about as desperate as it gets.

Let's try again. Could there be a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos in North Korea or Cuba? Obviously no!

So the left comes up with the term democratic socialism to soften the blow. They assume that people will vote for socialism at the polling station during elections. OK, assume the voters elect socialism. What happens to the business owners? Can they continue to function as capitalists?

 

[Paul]

We're talking about DEMOCRATIC Socialism. The people chose that in free and fair elections. One (wo)man/ one vote, No restrictions except for citizentship,

DEMOCRACY: government by the people especially : rule of the majority.
A democracy is to to obey the will of the majority.

OK, assume the majority wants 100% socialism. How about those that did not vote for socialism? What can they do?

 

[Dragon]

Let's try again. Could there be a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos in North Korea or Cuba? Obviously no!

So the left comes up with the term democratic socialism to soften the blow. They assume that people will vote for socialism at the polling station during elections. OK, assume the voters elect socialism. What happens to the business owners? Can they continue to function as capitalists?

You keep going round and round like a broken record. Nothing here is either or but rather where the majority lean to.

No Country is 100% capitalist and No Country is 100% socialist

 

[samiam5211]

DEMOCRACY: government by the people especially : rule of the majority.
A democracy is to to obey the will of the majority.

You must hate the Electoral College.

 

[Paul]

You keep going round and round like a broken record. Nothing here is either or but rather where the majority lean to.

No Country is 100% capitalist and No Country is 100% socialist

Sure, but let's talk about this in philosophical terms. The truth is that a man would not be allowed to have a business in a 100% socialist nation. OTOH, anyone can be a socialist in a 100% capitalist nation. No one is stopping American socialists to establish workers owned businesses.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

You do not like your country. That is obvious!

Explain, please. I'm merely recognizing the elephant in the room. Not sure how you infer I dislike the country from that. Honestly, that kind of assertion is no different than the rhetoric Domenech is spewing. You can only like America if you bury your head in the sand and ignore its problems? Sounds like all those people who would argue I wasn't a Saints fan because I sometimes criticized the teams moves. It would be more accurate to say I don't not like what this country is becoming and I refuse to blind myself to it.

Call me unpatriotic but I don't like this:



And Mandel stands an extremely good shot at becoming the next Senator from Ohio. He leads in GOP primary polling by a significant margin and there's little to no chance Democrats win this seat.

 

[coldseat]

This conversation has gotten ridiculous.

Either @Paul can't comprehend what others are saying, or he just likes to lead people down endless rabbit holes to arrive at a nonsensical "truth" about socialism.

No offense @Paul, if you're truly trying to have a sincere discussion, but this is what every conversation with you feels like. It's like you have your own reality of the way you see and define things and how you frame them that you want everybody to agree to even though your definition contradicts the actual meaning of the words and your framing is nonsensical.

 

[J-DONK]

This conversation has gotten ridiculous.

Either @Paul can't comprehend what others are saying, or he just likes to lead people down endless rabbit holes to arrive at a nonsensical "truth" about socialism.

No offense @Paul, if you're truly trying to have a sincere discussion, but this is what every conversation with you feels like. It's like you have your own reality of the way you see and define things and how you frame them that you want everybody to agree to even though your definition contradicts the actual meaning of the words and your framing is nonsensical.

No offense, but comes across as someone in their teens to early 20's that just started listening to Ben Shabibo.

Paul,

America loves socialism, but only for rich people. If you weren't a child in 2008, you wouldn't be arguing about this.