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

[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".

 

[hilldalt]

I was expecting arroz con pollo for all

 

[Goatman saint]

This thread has taught me you are either sober or drunk, there’s no gradient.

Essentially yes

 

[V Chip]

You guys tell me you are all benevolent social democrats that love freedom and capitalism-------------then you all go hysterical because I put down Chávez.

Nobody is going hysterical because you put down Chavez. I don’t like Chavez in any way — he removed Democratic systems and installed an authoritarian system in its place. Yet somehow you try to call Venezuela a Democratic Socialist state?

 

[Paul]

Nobody is going hysterical because you put down Chavez. I don’t like Chavez in any way — he removed Democratic systems and installed an authoritarian system in its place. Yet somehow you try to call Venezuela a Democratic Socialist state?

The reason Chávez used repression and established an authoritarian government is that he wanted much more socialism than just safety nets and social programs. He wanted to nationalize private enterprises and wanted to be president for life by altering the constitution and the court system. The problem with many that propoe democratic socialism is that they see it as a stepping stone to more socialism. Just look at the web page of Social Democrats of America.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) - Working towards a better future for all.

Working towards a better future for all.

www.dsausa.org

Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. Adam Smith
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/adam-smith-quotes

 

[Paul]

No but you keep pulling questionable sources from the internet, never actually discuss anything and never reply to the questions asked. Chavez is first and foremost a classic tin-pot dictator as several has told you and not a social democrat in any shape or form. Even the Nazi party had socialism in its name and again was anything but that.

You found an article which stated that "The Dishonesty of ‘Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried’ and I told you that It was an oppinion piece (author writes his oppinion without providing any support of his claims) and the simple fact that that he can't distinquish between communists and socialists is very revealing, just as you seem unable to fathom that a social democracy is not a socialist country but at mixture of capitalism and socialism. When the the factuallity of said article is questioned your only response is "what about chavez"

As long as you wont debate in good faith, this thread is a waste of time.

I do not disagree with what you say above. The issue is that many that profess to want social democracy are rabid old fashion socialists that despise capitalism and Western values. BTW, the socialists nations in the 20th century murdered millions for not complying to socialism. Defenders of Marx will say that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot exemplified only a perverted caricature of Marxism, and that the real thing hasn’t yet been tried.

 

[SystemShock]

BTW, the socialists nations in the 20th century murdered millions for not complying to socialism.

Where have I heard that one before? Ah, yes, replaced atheism with socialism. In any case, the reply is the same: tyranny and religious devotion to pseudo-gods, that was what killed millions.

You must be very close to the inner core.

 

[Dragon]

I do not disagree with what you say above. The issue is that many that profess to want social democracy are rabid old fashion socialists that despise capitalism and Western values. BTW, the socialists nations in the 20th century murdered millions for not complying to Dictators. Defenders of Marx will say that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot exemplified only a perverted caricature of Marxism, and that the real thing hasn’t yet been tried.

Franco, Hitler, Pinochet
The genocides of native populations in the Americas, Africa and Asia when big Companies want land, mines and cheap labor. When profit was more important than human lives...

"many that profess to want social democracy are rabid old fashion socialists that despise capitalism and Western values"

And you know that how?? Do you read minds? It would be like saying that all who belive in free markets really long for an Authoritarian dictatorship. All statements like that do is to paint the "other" as enemies and serve only one purpose. To divide people who should be working together for the common good,

 

[Paul]

Franco, Hitler, Pinochet
The genocides of native populations in the Americas, Africa and Asia when big Companies want land, mines and cheap labor. When profit was more important than human lives...

Colonialism is in the past and not likely to repeat again as there are no unknown lands to conquer. Furthermore it was a long time ago when slavery was the order of the day around the world. However, the atrocities of socialism are modern day issues and still occurring. You continue to be offended because I say people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, PolPot, etc were murderous. To make matters worse they murdered their own kind for having the temerity to disagree. Your virtuosity is dangerous to moderates like myself.

Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. Adam Smith
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/adam-smith-quotes

"many that profess to want social democracy are rabid old fashion socialists that despise capitalism and Western values"

And you know that how?? Do you read minds? It would be like saying that all who belive in free markets really long for an Authoritarian dictatorship. All statements like that do is to paint the "other" as enemies and serve only one purpose. To divide people who should be working together for the common good,

So why do you get so upset when I point out the murderous socialists of the 20th century? Why do you imply that two wrongs make a right by mentioning the colonialism and slavery of hundreds of years ago? Are you hurt when I point out the murderous intolerant side of socialism?

 

[hilldalt]

Colonialism is in the past and not likely to repeat again as there are no unknown lands to conquer. Furthermore it was a long time ago when slavery was the order of the day around the world. However, the atrocities of socialism are modern day issues and still occurring. You continue to be offended because I say people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, PolPot, etc were murderous. To make matters worse they murdered their own kind for having the temerity to disagree. Your virtuosity is dangerous to moderates like myself.

Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. Adam Smith
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/adam-smith-quotes

So why do you get so upset when I point out the murderous socialists of the 20th century? Why do you imply that two wrongs make a right by mentioning the colonialism and slavery of hundreds of years ago? Are you hurt when I point out the murderous intolerant side of socialism?

China is the new debt colonizer

 

[Dragon]

You did not answer my question - How do you know that. Do you read minds?

Colonialism is in the past and not likely to repeat again as there are no unknown lands to conquer. Furthermore it was a long time ago when slavery was the order of the day around the world. However, the atrocities of socialism are modern day issues and still occurring. You continue to be offended because I say people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, PolPot, etc were murderous. To make matters worse they murdered their own kind for having the temerity to disagree. Your virtuosity is dangerous to moderates like myself.

So why do you get so upset when I point out the murderous DICTATORS of the 20th century? Why do you imply that two wrongs make a right by mentioning the colonialism and slavery of hundreds of years ago? Are you hurt when I point out the murderous intolerant side of socialism

I don't get upset but your facts are wrong. What those people had in common - was that they were Dictators no matter what else they called themself.
But you really don't care - to you social democrats, socialists, Communist and Maxists are all the same despite having less in common than a center orientet republican has in with a member of KKK.

You call my "virtuosity" dangerous lol ? Those who do not know history is bound to repeat the old mistakes. I find your ignorance very dangerous.

And you are definitely ALSO wrong about this

Colonialism is in the past and not likely to repeat again as there are no unknown lands to conquer. Furthermore it was a long time ago when slavery was the order of the day around the world. However, the atrocities of socialism are modern day issues and still occurring. You continue to be offended because I say people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, PolPot, etc were murderous. To make matters worse they murdered their own kind for having the temerity to disagree. Your virtuosity is dangerous to moderates like myself.

This report is from 2018

The rise of PMSCs is not surprising, the report states. However, government must address policy questions whenever these companies contribute to the region’s violence and crime by “trafficking in weapons or attacking citizens who stand in the way of their clients’ interests.”

In some cases, this has meant killing local people and activists who have demonstrated against clients, especially larger clients like corporations searching for oil or other natural resources.

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/7837-private-security-companies-go-unchecked-in-latin-america

 

[Paul]

China is the new debt colonizer

You may have a point! China is all over Africa, And let's not forget that China is now fascist.

 

[Paul]

I don't get upset but your facts are wrong.

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered millions. Why do you deny that?

What those people had in common - was that they were Dictators no matter what else they called themself.

Yes, they were socialist dictators. They had a dream and eliminated any one that disagreed. They thought they were correct and hence they had no conscience.

But you really don't care - to you social democrats, socialists, Communist and Maxists are all the same despite having less in common than a center orientet republican has in with a member of KKK.

That is a straw man. I simply distrust social democrats that hate capitalism. I can see right through them.

You call my "virtuosity" dangerous lol ? Those who do not know history is bound to repeat the old mistakes. I find your ignorance very dangerous.

And you are definitely ALSO wrong about this

The problem with those that think they are right is that they do not have a conscience.

I can see why you like socialism as the state provides everything and there is no need to contribute to society. I cannot blame anyone for loving that arrangement.

 

[RobF]

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered millions. Why do you deny that?

Yes, they were socialist dictators. They had a dream and eliminated any one that disagreed. They thought they were correct and hence they had no conscience.

That is a straw man. I simply distrust social democrats that hate capitalism. I can see right through them.

The problem with those that think they are right is that they do not have a conscience.

I can see why you like socialism as the state provides everything and there is no need to contribute to society. I cannot blame anyone for loving that arrangement.

Paul, knock it off already. You're clearly not discussing anything here in good faith; you simply stop responding to posts that establish beyond any doubt that your argument is clearly false, as well as self-contradictory, and now you're resorting to attempting to frame people calmly and rationally pointing out your weak attempts to conflate social democracies with authoritarian regimes as 'being upset'.

Your incorrect statements about democratic socialism were wrong. Chalk it up. Move on. Then maybe we, including you if you can get it into your head that you can't just tell other people what they think and define terms arbitrarily and unilaterally, could discuss equity, equality, and government policy from the point of view of where we are, and not from your personal wild fantasies about what people proposing specific and entirely democratic policies 'really think'.

 

[Paul]

Paul, knock it off already. You're clearly not discussing anything here in good faith; you simply stop responding to posts that establish beyond any doubt that your argument is clearly false, as well as self-contradictory, and now you're resorting to attempting to frame people calmly and rationally pointing out your weak attempts to conflate social democracies with authoritarian regimes as 'being upset'.

I have no issues with capitalist nations with a healthy social net. I just do not buy as the oxymoron of democratic socialism. Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and hence the word democratic in front of socialism makes no sense.

Democratic-Socialism combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually the antithesis of democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government (acting as surrogate for the people).

 

[RobF]

I have no issues with capitalist nations with a healthy social net. I just do not buy as the oxymoron of democratic socialism. Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and hence the word democratic in front of socialism makes no sense.

Democratic-Socialism combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually the antithesis of democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government (acting as surrogate for the people).

Thanks for repeating yourself, again, but I think it'll be more productive at this point if we move on to discussing the reality of democratic socialism and how related policies may be able to help address issues of equity. And not your personal fundamentally flawed notions that have already repeatedly been exposed as bunkum.

You can keep repeating yourself, with added memes, but you're not telling us anything about democratic socialism at this point, you're just telling us about yourself.

 

[SystemShock]

I was expecting arroz con pollo for all

Why?

 

[Dragon]

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered millions. Why do you deny that?

Yes, they were socialist dictators. They had a dream and eliminated any one that disagreed. They thought they were correct and hence they had no conscience.

That is a straw man. I simply distrust social democrats that hate capitalism. I can see right through them.

The problem with those that think they are right is that they do not have a conscience.

I can see why you like socialism as the state provides everything and there is no need to contribute to society. I cannot blame anyone for loving that arrangement.

You don't know me and that statement says more about you than it does about anyone else on this board.

You may have read a few things on the internet or heard some people talk on tv but those things you talk about are very real for me on a personal level


My grandfather spend almost 2 years in a german KZ camp before being liberated for his political views. He risks his life by working for the resistance and among other things help innocent women and children who the germans wanted solely due to their faith, escape. He got caugth and spend two years in hell.

I have spend most of my youth travelling in Europe - East AND West and was part of a social democratic student youth group who helped students from East Germany and other countries behind "The WALL" get out. I have personally seen the fall of the Berlin Wall. Berlin is less than 6 hours drive from my house and we drove down there to meet friends who were finally able to cross over into West Berlin.

My best friend were part of the danish army group who went into Srebrenica after the massacre and he still have nigthmares about it..

So don't talk to me about not contributing to society and the meaning and cost of freedom and democracy. I think I know them very well!!!!

 

[SystemShock]

I have no issues with capitalist nations with a healthy social net. I just do not buy as the oxymoron of democratic socialism. Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and hence the word democratic in front of socialism makes no sense.

Democratic-Socialism combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually the antithesis of democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government (acting as surrogate for the people).

Must be past the inner core now.

Probably something is lost in translation , but democracy and socialism are not contradictory words. The former is a form of government, the latter is an economic model.