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".

 

[UriUT]

Corruption happens in all human activities. You also find corruption among those that favor socialism. Despite the corruption this is the most prosperous time in world history.

Are you seriously comparing the morality of two systems??? In case you didn't know, capitalism relies on the selfishness of the individual.

Those that favor a socialism have no issues with coercion. That is proble.

I'd like to insert the inigo montoya quote here: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

[Paul]

Are you seriously comparing the morality of two systems??? In case you didn't know, capitalism relies on the selfishness of the individual.

Are you somehow implying that capitalists are corrupted and that socialists are not? Corruption happens in all walks of life.

I'd like to insert the inigo montoya quote here: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Do you accept the coercion of a socialist state?

 

[Paul]

Can private property rights exist without the state?

Without a government and laws there would be chaos. A system where anything you have can be taken away from by anyone stronger than you.

 

[samiam5211]

Without a government and laws there would be chaos. A system where anything you have can be taken away from by anyone stronger than you.

private property cannot exist without coercion.

You keep using coercion as a way to disparage things you do not like, as if it is possible for civilization to exist without coercion.

The only difference with regard to coercion between Socialism and Capitalism are the sources of coercion. The amount of coercion required for either to function is not any different.

 

[bird]

Corruption happens in all human activities. You also find corruption among those that favor socialism. Despite the corruption this is the most prosperous time in world history.

Define prosperous. Include distribution of resources, wealth, fruits of labor and access to/influence of political economy.

 

[bird]

Those that favor a socialism have no issues with coercion. That is proble.

Again with this drivel.

Define socialism.

 

[J-DONK]

The USA is based on capitalism sprinkled with social programs to avoid a revolution.

This is so poorly thought out, and is a really telling statement.

Savings and Loans
Great Recession(TARP)
Pandemic(CARES)

These are all massive government bailouts since 1989. They are the anti-thesis of the free market, and capitalism. What do they have in common? They were all signed into law by Republican presidents.

Some of this money was allocated to help the average joe, but a massive amount was used to save the assets of the very wealthy.

You also need to figure out how contradictory things like the Farm Bill and Big AG fit into this world view.

 

[UriUT]

Are you somehow implying that capitalists are corrupted and that socialists are not? Corruption happens in all walks of life.

No. The point was that using corruption to compare the systems was silly. After re-reading your comments, that's not your intent. However, adding corruption to the argument is also silly. It isn't about corruption. The argument is that competition is a desired trait of a free market. However, due to the inherent nature of competition and selfishness of the individual, there are outcomes where competition isn't ideal: monopolies and oligopolies. The system breaks down and ceases to be good for the public. I really don't even know why corruption was injected if one understands this basic concept.

Do you accept the coercion of a socialist state?

Do you understand what coercion is? I'll help you. The Saints agreed to be part of the NFL and follow its rules. Let's assume the Saints were flushed in cash and decided to spend and bought all the great players. After seeing that only a handful of teams can now realistically compete, the NFL decided to install a salary cap. Now the Saints have to use their wits to compete and funnel some of that money to the lesser rich team. Do you think the Saints were coerced? If you answer yes, why? the Saints agreed to the rules that the NFL will make policy...that is willingly (opposite of coercion). Just as they agreed to the rules before that made them rich. Is it now only coercion if it goes against the saints? They had equal say in a democratic process to choose what the rules are. Just because they were outvoted isn't coercion. And one can easily argue that this "socialist" policy helped the NFL become the dominant force that it is today. (ask MLB how theyre' doing).

 

[Paul]

private property cannot exist without coercion.

Yes, Hobbes looked at this in medieval times in his famous book Leviathan. Societies need laws to avoid aggression among its members. Plato also wrote about the need of a government.

You keep using coercion as a way to disparage things you do not like, as if it is possible for civilization to exist without coercion.

See m post above about Leviathan. This philosophical point was discussed at nauseam hundreds of years ago.

The only difference with regard to coercion between Socialism and Capitalism are the sources of coercion. The amount of coercion required for either to function is not any different.

The coercion in a socialist nation is much greater. Just look at any nation based on socialism. Dissent is simply not tolerated.

 

[Paul]

No. The point was that using corruption to compare the systems was silly. After re-reading your comments, that's not your intent. However, adding corruption to the argument is also silly. It isn't about corruption. The argument is that competition is a desired trait of a free market. However, due to the inherent nature of competition and selfishness of the individual, there are outcomes where competition isn't ideal: monopolies and oligopolies. The system breaks down and ceases to be good for the public. I really don't even know why corruption was injected if one understands this basic concept.

A capitalist monopoly is bad, I agree. However, the monopoly of a centralized economy in a socialist nation is a billion times worse.

 

[samiam5211]

The coercion in a socialist nation is much greater. Just look at any nation based on socialism. Dissent is simply not tolerated.

Nations aren't based on socialism. Economies are. There isn't and will never be an economy based entirely on socialism, because the market principles always exist.

 

[Paul]

Nations aren't based on socialism. Economies are. There isn't and will never be an economy based entirely on socialism, because the market principles always exist.

Ok, just look at North Korea or Cuba, you know what I mean. Do not play the naive card.

 

[Dragon]

Ok, just look at North Korea or Cuba, you know what I mean. Do not play the naive card.

North Korea is a dictatorship. You keep ignoring that fact when you use totalitarian regimes as example. Cuba has plenty of private enterprises so your ignorance of the actual facts are obvious once again.

 

[Paul]

North Korea is a dictatorship. You keep ignoring that fact when you use totalitarian regimes as example. Cuba has plenty of private enterprises so your ignorance of the actual facts are obvious once again.

You like to argue peripheral points and ignore the main theme. That is playing the naive card.

 

[Goatman saint]

Ok, just look at North Korea or Cuba, you know what I mean. Do not play the naive card.

Those are dictators. I would hardly say either are true socialist countries

You like to argue peripheral points and ignore the main theme. That is playing the naive card.

are you for real?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

are you for real?

See more

No

 

[Paul]

Define prosperous. Include distribution of resources, wealth, fruits of labor and access to/influence of political economy.

The wealth of the world has grown. The number of people in poverty is declining. Poverty may be eradicated within 50 years. The poor of this era are obese (a first in world history). The inequality remains. Capitalism does not solve inequality.

 

[Dragon]

The wealth of the world has grown. The number of people in poverty is declining. Poverty may be eradicated within 50 years. The poor of this era are obese (a first in world history). The inequality remains. Capitalism does not solve inequality.

Wrong. The % has more or less remained the same the last 50 years and the raw numbers have increased