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]

Frankly, you seem to lack the basic understanding of what socialism is and what the system actually is.

For example: to make your point on incentives, you compare a communist state with a capitalist state with some "socialist" policies and believe that everyone who's not you are calling for a communist state. That's simply not true. No one here, certainly not I, are calling for the government seizures of property or labor. By the way, Reagan, hero of supply side economics, did that with the traffic controllers. You yourself, acknowledges there's a problem with wealth distribution. That's why the tax system is there amongst other things. One is to fairly redistribute wealth via social programs that helps folks reach their potential for example. Someone has already explained that to you, but I don't see any comprehension or acknowledgement out of you. Again, no one is asking for government seizures or impair incentives and innovations. As a tangent, during the 60s taxes were high relative to today. Taht's even after Kennedy's tax cut. The money was spent on a space program that if my memory was correct hit something of 10% of gdp? But you know what? the innovations that came from that spurs the riches that we have today. Government incentives for the win?????

Another is that you seem to think that a band of entrepreneurs gathering to form a corporation or anyone who gathers in something similar to a commune is a socialist. ?????? Or a person who leaves wealth to someone else is a socialist??? I mean the smurfs have one word but common now.

Ok, you are a bit condescending, but that is par for the course. For the record I am very much a centrist and in favor of Medicare for all, free tuition at state universities, social security, and social programs to help the less fortunate. I am also pro choice, agnostic, pro LGBTQIA+, and for the eradication of racism. I am an old fashion liberal near the center and not a left winger.

However, I am not one of those that think capitalism is evil. I realize Marx was correct in his assessment of capitalism, but the proposed cure of socialism never worked. Thankfully many that were in loved with the idea of equality (read the John Lennon lyrics to Imagine) have reluctantly accepted capitalism is the best we ever had with regards to wealth creation. Sadly, there is no equality. To try to equalize the system to a very high degree would be a disaster.

I am not in love with the idea that the world is divided between oppressors and victims and that anyone that is successful must be oppressing someone. I do not accept the teaching that if we tax more and give more free stuff to the lower classes we somehow get rid of poverty. We can get rid of poverty by providing opportunity, however the culture of poverty needs to be changed. The latter is the most important thing to be done.

I agree that the tax rates should be higher for the very rich, but I do not see that as a solution. All I see is people repeating worn out recycled phrases they heard from a politicians looking for votes. Sticking it to the rich is not the answer.

I have said people like Bill Gates and other billionaires are socialists because they actually redistribute more wealth than Castro, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin put together. I am surprised people do not get the tongue in cheek remark.

 

[Paul]

No, you're oversimplifying things again like you did by calling shyness genetic when it is in fact about 30% genetic and 70% environment. Talent helps, indeed. Again, history is littered with talented, driven people who didn't get wealthy. You remember those that do and point to them as examples because you don't even know the hundreds or thousands more who didn't get wealthy.

I do not disagree. To become very wealthy is a rarity and not the norm. However, humans exist in a hierarchy of talent and those with greater talent have a better chance to succeed in life.

 

[UriUT]

Ok, you are a bit condescending, but that is par for the course. For the record I am very much a centrist and in favor of Medicare for all, free tuition at state universities, social security, and social programs to help the less fortunate. I am also pro choice, agnostic, pro LGBTQIA+, and for the eradication of racism. I am an old fashion liberal near the center and not a left winger.

However, I am not one of those that think capitalism is evil. I realize Marx was correct in his assessment of capitalism, but the proposed cure of socialism never worked. Thankfully many that were in loved with the idea of equality (read the John Lennon lyrics to Imagine) have reluctantly accepted capitalism is the best we ever had with regards to wealth creation. Sadly, there is no equality. To try to equalize the system to a very high degree would be a disaster.

I am not in love with the idea that the world is divided between oppressors and victims and that anyone that is successful must be oppressing someone. I do not accept the teaching that if we tax more and give more free stuff to the lower classes we somehow get rid of poverty. We can get rid of poverty by providing opportunity, however the culture of poverty needs to be changed. The latter is the most important thing to be done.

I agree that the tax rates should be higher for the very rich, but I do not see that as a solution. All I see is people repeating worn out recycled phrases they heard from a politicians looking for votes. Sticking it to the rich is not the answer.

I have said people like Bill Gates and other billionaires are socialists because they actually redistribute more wealth than Castro, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin put together. I am surprised people do not get the tongue in cheek remark.

You can define yourself anyway you want, but until u get acknowledgement from outsider perspectives, you will never know will you? Will a chair know it's a chair unless someone tells it that it's a chair?

Anyway, again, Bill Gates isn't a socialist. He is generous and a philanthropist, but he does not believe a government takeover of property and labor. It's like calling JP Morgan or Rockefeller a socialist.

Regarding capitalism, I feel like I'm in some tolkien book of defined good vs evil. Just because one recognizes the flaws of capitalism doesn't mean one regards it as evil. There are aspects that goes counter to the good of the general. Do we all have some borderline personality here? You keep repeating the same nonsensical ideas that dwells on your misconception of socialism, capitalism, and the current iteration of capitalism with some social programs.

Look at that, I've fallen into the trap.

 

[Paul]

You can define yourself anyway you want, but until u get acknowledgement from outsider perspectives, you will never know will you? Will a chair know it's a chair unless someone tells it that it's a chair?

Anyway, again, Bill Gates isn't a socialist. He is generous and a philanthropist, but he does not believe a government takeover of property and labor. It's like calling JP Morgan or Rockefeller a socialist.

Regarding capitalism, I feel like I'm in some tolkien book of defined good vs evil. Just because one recognizes the flaws of capitalism doesn't mean one regards it as evil. There are aspects that goes counter to the good of the general. Do we all have some borderline personality here? You keep repeating the same nonsensical ideas that dwells on your misconception of socialism, capitalism, and the current iteration of capitalism with some social programs.

Look at that, I've fallen into the trap.

OK, I will not use figures of speech anymore. I suspect you get the figure of speech, but you pretend not to so you can make this silly statement: "Anyway, again, Bill Gates isn't a socialist. He is generous and a philanthropist, but he does not believe a government takeover of property and labor."

Too much of a good thing can be a poison. That applies to both socialism and capitalism.

With regards to whom has done a better job in helping those at the bottom: Hands down liberals have done better. However, too much of a good thing may bring poor results.

Lastly, at the end of the day our views are pretty much ingrained in the personality profile except people that are in the middle who may have a bit of both the left and the right.

Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values​

Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values - PubMed

Political conservatism has been characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, with liberalism characterized by the polar opposite of these values. Political attitudes are heritable and may be influenced by basic personality traits. In previous research, conservatism (vs...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​

Political conservatism has been characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, with liberalism characterized by the polar opposite of these values. Political attitudes are heritable and may be influenced by basic personality traits. In previous research, conservatism (vs. liberalism) has been associated positively with Conscientiousness and negatively with Openness-Intellect, consistent with the association of conservatism with resistance to change. Less clear, however, are the personality traits relating to egalitarianism. In two studies, using a personality model that divides each of the Big Five into two aspects, the present research found that one aspect of Agreeableness (Compassion) was associated with liberalism and egalitarianism, whereas the other (Politeness) was associated with conservatism and traditionalism. In addition, conservatism and moral traditionalism were positively associated with the Orderliness aspect of Conscientiousness and negatively with Openness-Intellect. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of personality's relation to political attitudes and values.

When I read the posts of those with the personality traits of liberalism one can predict with near 100% of certainty what they will say. It is the same old story over and over again.

 

[SFIDC3]

Sticking it to the rich is not the answer.

You keep insisting that changing the tax code to ensure the uber wealthy pay as much as say a middle income/class worker is somehow "Sticking it to the rich"....why is that?

 

[Paul]

You keep insisting that changing the tax code to ensure the uber wealthy pay as much as say a middle income/class worker is somehow "Sticking it to the rich"....why is that?

Straw man!

I am OK with raising taxes on the super rich. However, quite often the super rich do not pay themselves a salary therefore raising the tax on income to 90% will not do the job. The rich pay themselves with dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate. A tax hike on dividends will hurt those that are not necessarily rich. In any event the tax laws are written by congress members that receive donations from the rich. The Dems may say they are for the little guy, but that is not always the case.

IN some instances a very rich person may live off savings that have already been taxed and hence they will not pay taxes that year. The tax code also allows deduction when a person loses money. The very rich often make deals that lose money.

The salaries they pay to employees are tax deductible, but the employees will pay tax. The employer pays half of the social security and medicare tax.

The best way for the government to make money is to have a booming economy and borrow less money.

 

[RobF]

I am not in love with the idea that the world is divided between oppressors and victims and that anyone that is successful must be oppressing someone.

Do you recognise a distinction between "no-one can be successful without oppressing anyone" and "the nature and degree of success for many depends on the oppression and exploitation of others"?

I do not accept the teaching that if we tax more and give more free stuff to the lower classes we somehow get rid of poverty. We can get rid of poverty by providing opportunity, however the culture of poverty needs to be changed. The latter is the most important thing to be done.

Adequate taxation and investment in things like schools, higher education, local and regional development, is one of the ways in which we provide opportunity.

I agree that the tax rates should be higher for the very rich, but I do not see that as a solution. All I see is people repeating worn out recycled phrases they heard from a politicians looking for votes. Sticking it to the rich is not the answer.

Who, specifically, is calling for "sticking it to the rich", just "giving more free stuff", and repeating these 'worn out recycled phrases'? Who are you talking to? Because it's not the people you're replying to.

You're the one who introduced the phrase 'sticking it to the rich' to the conversation in the first place, and you literally entered the thread with an inane facebook meme. At some point, you should really think about whether you're in a position to be throwing all these stones.

 

[UriUT]

OK, I will not use figures of speech anymore. I suspect you get the figure of speech, but you pretend not to so you can make this silly statement: "Anyway, again, Bill Gates isn't a socialist. He is generous and a philanthropist, but he does not believe a government takeover of property and labor."

Too much of a good thing can be a poison. That applies to both socialism and capitalism.

With regards to whom has done a better job in helping those at the bottom: Hands down liberals have done better. However, too much of a good thing may bring poor results.

Lastly, at the end of the day our views are pretty much ingrained in the personality profile except people that are in the middle who may have a bit of both the left and the right.

Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values​

Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values - PubMed

Political conservatism has been characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, with liberalism characterized by the polar opposite of these values. Political attitudes are heritable and may be influenced by basic personality traits. In previous research, conservatism (vs...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract​

Political conservatism has been characterized by resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, with liberalism characterized by the polar opposite of these values. Political attitudes are heritable and may be influenced by basic personality traits. In previous research, conservatism (vs. liberalism) has been associated positively with Conscientiousness and negatively with Openness-Intellect, consistent with the association of conservatism with resistance to change. Less clear, however, are the personality traits relating to egalitarianism. In two studies, using a personality model that divides each of the Big Five into two aspects, the present research found that one aspect of Agreeableness (Compassion) was associated with liberalism and egalitarianism, whereas the other (Politeness) was associated with conservatism and traditionalism. In addition, conservatism and moral traditionalism were positively associated with the Orderliness aspect of Conscientiousness and negatively with Openness-Intellect. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of personality's relation to political attitudes and values.

When I read the posts of those with the personality traits of liberalism one can predict with near 100% of certainty what they will say. It is the same old story over and over again.

Seriously, what is this gibberish? Its a waste of time. Folks are being more than fair to you and you are constantly on another highway. You cannot define someone a word without understanding the meaning. You cannot rail against a system when you have not grasped its fundamental traits.

A man comes up to a monkey and says, here little monkey, bananas are bad for you. The monkey replies...but I wasnt eating a banana. I enjoy very much these mangoes. To which the man then replies no no bananas are bad for you.

 

[Paul]

Seriously, what is this gibberish? Its a waste of time. Folks are being more than fair to you and you are constantly on another highway. You cannot define someone a word without understanding the meaning. You cannot rail against a system when you have not grasped its fundamental traits.

A man comes up to a monkey and says, here little monkey, bananas are bad for you. The monkey replies...but I wasnt eating a banana. I enjoy very much these mangoes. To which the man then replies no no bananas are bad for you.

So far all you have done is acrimony.
Do you have an argument? Can you have a dialogue in a civil manner?

 

[brandon]

So far all you have done is acrimony.

How does one “do acrimony”?

 

[UriUT]

So far all you have done is acrimony.
Do you have an argument? Can you have a dialogue in a civil manner?

Probably not. In each of my replies to you, it's the same argument. And it's getting repetitive if you cannot even see the argument by now.

I'll summarize for the final time. Someone explains a social policy that will benefit the poor or middle class. You then scream that socialism is bad. We cannot give handouts. We cannot exploit the rich. Socialism bad.

It is then explained to you again, it isn't socialism.

You reply again socialism bad.

[whispers] Medicare for all is government control, government dictated/involvement in the medical industry....very dare I say....socialist...[gasp]

To top it off, you give me that passive aggressive reply that conservatives are some how nicer and are more open-minded? That somehow it is predictable how a liberal would respond? (btw, a tell that you are not moderate). We were addressing definition? That can't even be argued. You called bill gates a socialist!!!! To any observer who knows what a socialist is, bill gates is not a socialist. He bought out his competitors and killed lots more startups. And your post didn't even have anything to do with the discussion. So play the victim. It's really bad taste.

And I'll end it with this. It's insulting that you believe that the folks who are poor is because they lack intelligence. What was it...60% that you said was a factor to them being poor? You explicitly implied that folks like my dad are stupid. Well I'll tell you what. He didn't have the means for an education. Couldn't get it if he tried. Worked his whole life to support 6 kids. If not for government assistance, I can tell you none of his kids would have advanced degrees. With the benefits of food stamps, tuition grants, healthcare, etc, we all earned our degrees. If not for that assistance, we wouldn't have our degrees and you'd label us stupid.

 

[Paul]

Probably not. In each of my replies to you, it's the same argument. And it's getting repetitive if you cannot even see the argument by now.

I'll summarize for the final time. Someone explains a social policy that will benefit the poor or middle class. You then scream that socialism is bad. We cannot give handouts. We cannot exploit the rich. Socialism bad.

It is then explained to you again, it isn't socialism.

You reply again socialism bad.

[whispers] Medicare for all is government control, government dictated/involvement in the medical industry....very dare I say....socialist...[gasp]

To top it off, you give me that passive aggressive reply that conservatives are some how nicer and are more open-minded? That somehow it is predictable how a liberal would respond? (btw, a tell that you are not moderate). We were addressing definition? That can't even be argued. You called bill gates a socialist!!!! To any observer who knows what a socialist is, bill gates is not a socialist. He bought out his competitors and killed lots more startups. And your post didn't even have anything to do with the discussion. So play the victim. It's really bad taste.

And I'll end it with this. It's insulting that you believe that the folks who are poor is because they lack intelligence. What was it...60% that you said was a factor to them being poor? You explicitly implied that folks like my dad are stupid. Well I'll tell you what. He didn't have the means for an education. Couldn't get it if he tried. Worked his whole life to support 6 kids. If not for government assistance, I can tell you none of his kids would have advanced degrees. With the benefits of food stamps, tuition grants, healthcare, etc, we all earned our degrees. If not for that assistance, we wouldn't have our degrees and you'd label us stupid.

Th is what I said about your concerns:

Post 132:

I am OK with raising taxes on the super rich. However, quite often the super rich do not pay themselves a salary therefore raising the tax on income to 90% will not do the job. The rich pay themselves with dividends which are taxed at a much lower rate.

Post 130: I pasted an abstract from Publish med at NIH that described the personality traits of conservatives and left wingers. GO back and read it. It is an academic article. And they mentioned old fashion conservatives are more polite. Their words not mine.

Post 127: For the record I am very much a centrist and in favor of Medicare for all, free tuition at state universities, social security, and social programs to help the less fortunate. I am also pro choice, agnostic, pro LGBTQIA+, and for the eradication of racism.

When I said Bill gates was a socialist it was tongue in cheek, a figure of speech. You still do not get it.

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.
Hope you learned something new.

I did not say poverty was lack of intelligence. I said poverty had a cultural component.

The culture of poverty is a concept in social theory that asserts that the values of people experiencing poverty play a significant role in perpetuating their impoverished condition, sustaining a cycle of poverty across generations. Wikipedia

 

[Goatman saint]

The culture of poverty is a concept in social theory that asserts that the values of people experiencing poverty play a significant role in perpetuating their impoverished condition, sustaining a cycle of poverty across generations. Wikipedia

I had to come back to this just for this. You are saying that people in poverty have a poor value set (lazy, unmotivated, live off the government) and that then perpetuates generational poverty?
If I didn’t think before that you quoted random shirt just to try to make you sound like you know what you are talking about, here’s another one.

 

[Paul]

I had to come back to this just for this. You are saying that people in poverty have a poor value set (lazy, unmotivated, live off the government) and that then perpetuates generational poverty?
If I didn’t think before that you quoted random shirt just to try to make you sound like you know what you are talking about, here’s another one.

Economic success is often related to cultural values. For example, the Jews have had a culture of achievement since biblical times.

 

[V Chip]

For the record I am very much a centrist and in favor of Medicare for all, free tuition at state universities, social security, and social programs to help the less fortunate. I am also pro choice, agnostic, pro LGBTQIA+, and for the eradication of racism. I am an old fashion liberal near the center and not a left winger.

I agree that the tax rates should be higher for the very rich, but I do not see that as a solution.

You keep saying these things, yet anytime anyone mentions Democratic Socialism you rail against full-on socialism. These things you say you are in favor for are cornerstones of Democratic Socialism. It's like you have split personalities who are fighting for control inside your brain. So either you are really conflicted about what you truly believe, or you are putting us on about what you really believe.

 

[Paul]

You keep saying these things, yet anytime anyone mentions Democratic Socialism you rail against full-on socialism. These things you say you are in favor for are cornerstones of Democratic Socialism. It's like you have split personalities who are fighting for control inside your brain. So either you are really conflicted about what you truly believe, or you are putting us on about what you really believe.

Ok, I can see how someone may think there is a contradiction. I see free college tuition, National medicare, and social programs as part of the mission of capitalism to help others. I do not see it as a mixed economy or democratic socialism.

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. I do not agree with that as socialism requires coercion by the government. To this date we never had a successful socialist economy in the planet.

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.

 

[Dragon]

Ok, I can see how someone may think there is a contradiction. I see free college tuition, National medicare, and social programs as part of the mission of capitalism to help others. I do not see it as a mixed economy or democratic socialism.

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. I do not agree with that as socialism requires coercion by the government. To this date we never had a successful socialist economy in the planet.

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.

You have absolutely NO understanding of the Scandinavian model and the underlying ideology!

 

[Goatman saint]

Swedish voucher program and lack of success

Is Sweden proof that school choice doesn't improve education?

Betsy DeVos’s school choice ideas are a reality in Sweden, where student performance has suffered. In the second of a three-part series, find out how school choice works in other parts of the world.

www.pbs.org

Swedish retirement takes 18.5% for state pension. Of that 2% a person can choose through that system what they want to invest in. Not exactly privatizing in the Bush sense of dumping social security into the stock market in essence a free money grab for investors.
As far as privatization of rail and road, they let private firms take over rural routes that made less money and yet still subsidize them. Many roads are private, which means the people who live next to them help pay the upkeep. So it’s hardly a private matter I want any part of.