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".

 

[Paul]

Again, must be something lost in translation. 50 years you said?
Dragon isn't denying that, but rather, explaining that they didn't kill anyone because they weren't socialists, they killed anyone who they thought threaten their power.

Socialists are intoxicate by power at the same rate (probably more) than non-socialist leaders. They generally committ more atrocities because they feel justified (the end justifies the means).

And why are you throwing Lenin in that group?

Lenin killed less than the others, but he is still a murderer. Why do you defend this man?

 

[brandon]

If the democracy votes to outlaw homosexuality. Are you OK with that? Would that be coercion?

Not if you have a constitution that guarantees certain rights, and a judicial system that can deem the majority vote to be unconstitutional.

You know, like in every modern democracy.

 

[brandon]

Socialists are intoxicate by power at the same rate (probably more) than non-socialist leaders. They generally committ more atrocities because they feel justified (the end justifies the means).

[citation needed]

 

[V Chip]

If a democracy votes to outlaw homosexuality. Are you OK with that? Would that be coercion?

Yep it would be. Isn’t that odd how in a democracy some things can be coercive too? Yet I haven’t seen one post where you call Democracy an oxymoron.

Did you know in a capitalist democracy people can vote to outlaw unions? Yet I haven’t seen you rail against capitalism or democracy at all. It’s weird how that cognitive dissonance can be so loud that it drowns out all reason and rationality, right?

 

[Paul]

Yep it would be. Isn’t that odd how in a democracy some things can be coercive too? Yet I haven’t seen one post where you call Democracy an oxymoron.

OXYMORON: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. For democracy to be an oxymoron it needs to be paired with another term.

Did you know in a capitalist democracy people can vote to outlaw unions? Yet I haven’t seen you rail against capitalism or democracy at all. It’s weird how that cognitive dissonance can be so loud that it drowns out all reason and rationality, right?

Yes, however, that is different than prohibiting an individual to earn a living by been entrepreneurial or creative.

I will say it again: I am not advocating against social programs. My concern is with those that think capitalism is the enemy and that social programs are the good guys. The truth is that capitalism is needed to create the wealth to pay for the social programs. The Chinese discovered this a while back and the level of prosperity immediately went up.

 

[JRad]

Let me say this again. I do not have a problem with social programs, free college, Medicare for all, etc. That is not the point. My issue is the term "democratic socialism". It has to be an oxymoron because socialism can only be enforced by coercion. By definition socialism robs MAN of the freedom to be entrepreneurial for his own benefit.

You are making your own counter argument. If America is a capitalist democracy with programs rooted in socialism, then the two can clearly coexist. You are applying a rigid yes or no to something that clearly has a gradient. A capitalist democracy with the programs you mention is what the “democratic socialists“ are aiming for.

 

[SystemShock]

Socialism cannot be democratic. It has to be imposed by coercion.
Can you show how socialism can be imposed without coercion.

I don't know if you are trying to play with words (doesn't work with me) or if, your 50 years in the U.S. notwithstanding, you are not fully assimilated to the English language being a Latin American and all, but obviously nothing can be imposed without coercion.

However, governments with socialist agendas can be voted in by the people, and are voted in all the time without coercion.

Are you to a point where you can smell the zongzi?

 

[SystemShock]

Paul is incapable of seeing the distinction. He lives in sound-bite land where anything deeper than a ten-second summary or quick wikipedia read can't be understood.

I think that internet forum handles come and go, but posting styles rarely change. In any case, I find it amusing

 

[Paul]

However, governments with socialist agendas can be voted in by the people, and are voted in all the time without coercion.

Yes, but it is done within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is not real socialism.

 

[Paul]

I think that internet forum handles come and go, but posting styles rarely change. In any case, I find it amusing

Personal attacks are not an argument.
Socialism cannot happen in a democratic manner. You man Hugo Chávez knew this. I am surprised you don't

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, but it is done within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is not real socialism.

Where's the real Capitalism?

 

[brandon]

Socialism cannot happen in a democratic manner.

If a society votes to enact a socialist policy, like Medicare for all, which you support, is that not socialism happening in a democratic manner?

 

[SystemShock]

Personal attacks are not an argument.
Socialism cannot happen in a democratic manner. You man Hugo Chávez knew this. I am surprised you don't

Why do you do this to yourself? You just keep repeating the same thing over, and over again, expecting your claim to be true.

And Hugo Chávez is not "my man". Why would you even say that?

And how's what I posted an attack?

 

[Paul]

You are making your own counter argument. If America is a capitalist democracy with programs rooted in socialism, then the two can clearly coexist. You are applying a rigid yes or no to something that clearly has a gradient. A capitalist democracy with the programs you mention is what the “democratic socialists“ are aiming for.

I do not disagree with the concept but it is a bastageization of the original definition of socialism.

BTW, in a capitalist democracy voters could not vote for nationalization of all private property and enterprises.

 

[V Chip]

OXYMORON: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. For democracy to be an oxymoron it needs to be paired with another term.

No it doesn’t. They usually are but other definitions say it differently.

Definition of oxymoron

: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness)

broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Isn’t it weird how broadening your view can present something completely different to what you think you actually know?

Yes, however, that is different than prohibiting an individual to earn a living by been entrepreneurial or creative.

No, it isn’t.

 

[V Chip]

Yes, but it is done within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is not real socialism.

Again with the “100%” crap. This is maddening how you cling to this as if anyone here is advocating for 100% anything.

 

[Paul]

Again with the “100%” crap. This is maddening how you cling to this as if anyone here is advocating for 100% anything.

Hey guys:

There is no point to this. It seems most of you want to win the discussion with no regards learning something new.

 

[V Chip]

Hey guys:

There is no point to this. It seems most of you want to win the discussion with no regards learning something new.