Is all socialism bad?

[genocidal]

We're talking about the first humans, Euro. Not Neanderthals.

[PaulOakenfold]

We're talking about the first humans, Euro. Not Neanderthals.

So wait, were our first ancestors already in Europe when Neanderthals went extinct?

[Izor]

Well America is a place where you (should) have to work for what you have. I for one have no problem watching the house burn down if that guy isnt paying the fire department for their services. They arent a charity, and he basically called their bluff that they wouldnt help him if he needed it. If only doctors would do the same thing we'd be okay.

[Epinephrine]

Yeah but lets also just face it, nobody teaches dogs to be loyal pets, nobody teaches cats to be prissy stuck up animals. I mean besides from very basic and primal survival and communication instincts you can look at nearly any domesticated animal in the world and see that a certain trait has been bred into their genetic code to a certain extent. I say if you take a baby away at birth from a mom who a crackhead and replace that baby with one who comes from multiple generations of success and wealth that the baby who should have been wealthy will still end up better. The nurture over nature argument only works up until you reach the "nurturing ceiling" of the canvas you are working with. Some kids are just naturally bron or bred with a higher ceiling.

Actually you hit the nail on the head as to why we shouldn't have a fully 'free for all' type society, and why some aspects of the state and universalism are important. Please note I am not arguing for socialism, just something in the center.

It's just pure statistics. For instance, in a given population, there are so many people who are born talented. The more you maximize the chances of those talented people to rise up in the ranks to contribute as much as they possibly can to society, the better off society is.

Back in the pre-industrial world, at a minimum there were a huge number of people who were never empowered to be able to contribute anything irregardless of their talents. This includes all women, those born in the 'lower classes' and slaves. The only 'intellectuals' were actually just rich people who also happened to be talented. Yes, even in ancient Athens, only Athenian MALE ADULT citizens (less than 1/5 of the population of the city as most were slaves, women, children) could sit around debating philosophy, not counting those too poor to ever sit around. Most of the famous people that we read about in history were rich to begin with. The big difference between then and now, is that now we have systems in place where even people born with many disadvantages due to NURTURE but have many natural talents due to NATURE are given opportunities to succeed.

This includes things like universal health care, affirmative action, welfare, unemployment assistance, public schooling, higher education grants, public libraries, public services (i.e. policing, fire, ambulance, public water systems, etc), and laws that guarantee equality for all. Basically by giving a certain amount of assistance to those who are born with less resources to maximize their potential, all of society benefits. This by definition means that resources have to be taken from those with the most (the rich) and given to those with less, in order to achieve this.

Poor kids who grow up to be engineers/scientists/doctors because they are smart are good for everyone if only because if you just take the best of the rich kids, there actually isn't enough of these people to go around. Rather than have them have to not go to school ever (like in 3rd world countries where people can't afford schooling), have no health care and die early (like in 3rd world countries where high infant and child mortality rates are common) and go doing menial jobs for a living. No matter how smart you are, if you die before you can contribute anything, or if you or your family is living on subsistence levels, there's not much you can do to contribute to society.

Sure some of these people eventually manage to succeed against all odds, but the absolute percentage of those who do is far less, and thus society as a whole is worse off because it loses the potential contributions of so many people who could have contributed.

Yes it's important to not go 'too far', because for these people to succeed, not only do they need help, but they also need a system that rewards them for trying hard so that they have the motivation to try. Only a system that manages to balance these two competing interests will thrive in the long run.

Basically put, the more society is able to maximize the abilities of its members, the more benefit to all.

[kthx]

The problem with that is society itself fucking sucks. Even if we offer free education to every child as they leave high school we aren't doing the country any favors. College (besides specialized field studies) isn't really about education anymore it is about propaganda, and about giving the idea that having an education entitles you to a great life. We have entire fields of study where the only career path available to that person is to teach the field they studied in to the next generation of students who don't need to learn it. Take women's studies for instance. We aren't maximizing the potential of kids by giving them a free education unless we clamp down on what classes the people can take for free. I don't want my tax dollars going towards paying someone to go to school for a useless trade so they can pull some occupy whatever bullshit and whine about not being able to find a job. So yeah you want to go to school to become an electrical engineer blah blah blah thats fine. But honestly what they should be doing, instead of general studies in high school they should allow people to learn trades in high school instead. Learn how to be an electrician or a plumber instead of having to take two years of foreign language etc. If we handled our pre-college schooling better we wouldn't need to offer free education to maximize the potential of adults.

[kthx]

On top of this, you can't just take away money from people who have earned it and give it to people who have been proven to be bad with money. If you take a guy with a million bucks, tax away 1/4 of that and give the 250k to a single mom raising three kids with three different dads and expect her to make the right decisions to make sure her kids will have good lives she won't chances are. She is going to buy a car for 60k, buy a house for 150k and spend the rest on crack rocks and booze to find her next kids sperm donor. Trickle up economics doesn't work any better than trickle down economics does. And like I said the problem with your utopian idea is society itself, crackheads are gonna be crackheads, rich people are going to remain rich, and no amount of social engineering a change in that is going to change anything in the long run. That millionaire is going to end up getting that money back and the broke lady is going to end up broke and having her house foreclosed on and car repo'd because she didn't realize she had to still pay taxes on the land.

[Supreme]

oh, and this is some pretty weak-ass fuel if you're trying to start an ideological fire. i'm having trouble connecting the dots here.

[PaulOakenfold]

Well America is a place where you (should) have to work for what you have. I for one have no problem watching the house burn down if that guy isnt paying the fire department for their services. They arent a charity, and he basically called their bluff that they wouldnt help him if he needed it. If only doctors would do the same thing we'd be okay.

"Haha, stupid guy's house burnt down that didn't pay the fire department corporation... oh wait a second... why the hell is our house on fire now too? WAIT WE PAID YOU, THROW THE WATER OUT OF THE HOSE.... oh, it's too late now because the fire spread around the neighborhood? Stupid socialists."

[TagMor]

So if socialism is so bad how come U.S law enforcement is "socialised"? Why dont police officers stand around someone being mugged, trying to retrieve their proof of payment before intervening? Because socialisation of certain public services is critical in providing efficient services that benefit the society instead of hindering it.
I doubt this fire department can operate solely on $75 from each local resident and almost certainly receives State/Federal funding, so this man probably paid for the services through taxation and it's merely a case of fascist bureaucracy and perhaps corruption.

On top of this, you can't just take away money from people who have earned it and give it to people who have been proven to be bad with money

But your government does take away money from those that earned it, at a higher rate than many socialist countries.. The only difference is that money is then spent on corrupt wars and paying for corporate bonuses rather than being returned in the form of efficient health care, education, and public services.

[Jason]

i stand corrected, supreme.

shit is poppin'.

[Summa]

The problem with that is society itself fucking sucks. Even if we offer free education to every child as they leave high school we aren't doing the country any favors. College (besides specialized field studies) isn't really about education anymore it is about propaganda, and about giving the idea that having an education entitles you to a great life. We have entire fields of study where the only career path available to that person is to teach the field they studied in to the next generation of students who don't need to learn it. Take women's studies for instance. We aren't maximizing the potential of kids by giving them a free education unless we clamp down on what classes the people can take for free. I don't want my tax dollars going towards paying someone to go to school for a useless trade so they can pull some occupy whatever bullshit and whine about not being able to find a job. So yeah you want to go to school to become an electrical engineer blah blah blah thats fine. But honestly what they should be doing, instead of general studies in high school they should allow people to learn trades in high school instead. Learn how to be an electrician or a plumber instead of having to take two years of foreign language etc. If we handled our pre-college schooling better we wouldn't need to offer free education to maximize the potential of adults.

I have the published journal article sitting next to me, and I can give you a proper citation for this if you want it (the article isn't online as far as I could find). But high school juniors in 1965 were given the exact same test as high school juniors in 2005, as an attempted assessment of progress over 40 years of education. The students in 65's average score was an 82%, while the 2005 average was 69% (this is from a field of around 2000 students during both sets of years). The current collegiate education is worth about the same as a high school education was in the 60s. Why is that? (Again one of my fields of expertise)

-Mass standardization of education
-Increase in population of students/decrease in quality of teachers
-Attempts to garner profits from our "free education system"
-Increased federal budget, diminished state budgets
-Removal of requirements for what I would call "societal and pre-professional classes" (no more civics/gov, no more shop, no more home ec)

The modern k-12 american education prepares you for 1 thing: college. Why? so that you can get gouged for the 13 yrs of free-loading you've done on the gov't's dollar and they can make some coin back.

Wanna talk about why America is fucked now and will be fucked for at least 20 more years? Look no further than our infrastructure. The education system is just absolute garbage, and it stems from state funding problems and the shitty outdated teachers union.

[Summa]

I mean that sounds all good and well Summa but honestly that idea doesn't take into account the fact that there are people born and with the same level of training and education (or less in some cases) become much better. Einstein wasn't produced by his parents, Einstein was born with a ceiling higher than 99% of the population, the same could be said of Socrates, Plato, Galileo, Tesla and all of the other people who were a hundred years or more ahead of their times. I mean even if you take the philosophy of everyone character starts out with 10 points to distribute you eventually have to admit that some people end up getting a really rare roll and start out with 25. Those examples alone sort of disprove the thought process that all people are born with the same ability as the next.

About the animals I didn't actually mean animals were comparable to humans I was just using that to setup the example of there being exceptional breeds in this world.

I understand that there are certain biological facts, particularly regarding the amounts of gray matter that people are born with, that are in strict opposition to what I stated. I am in complete understanding of your point of view, however call my view a fool's optimism. I generally have a pretty pessimistic view on things, but that particular belief I hold helps me to operate better in terms of not being condescending and similar things. If you view everyone as equal to you in a vacuum, and only greater or less than you due to the social lottery and moral luck; then it becomes much easier to treat people as humans who deserve respect (unless they give you reason otherwise).

[Summa]

Basically put, the more society is able to maximize the abilities of its members, the more benefit to all.

This is like a giant Rawlsian post that ends with an oddly Nozickian conclusion....it kinda made me chuckle.

[Epinephrine]

The problem with that is society itself fucking sucks. Even if we offer free education to every child as they leave high school we aren't doing the country any favors. College (besides specialized field studies) isn't really about education anymore it is about propaganda, and about giving the idea that having an education entitles you to a great life. We have entire fields of study where the only career path available to that person is to teach the field they studied in to the next generation of students who don't need to learn it. Take women's studies for instance. We aren't maximizing the potential of kids by giving them a free education unless we clamp down on what classes the people can take for free. I don't want my tax dollars going towards paying someone to go to school for a useless trade so they can pull some occupy whatever bullshit and whine about not being able to find a job. So yeah you want to go to school to become an electrical engineer blah blah blah thats fine. But honestly what they should be doing, instead of general studies in high school they should allow people to learn trades in high school instead. Learn how to be an electrician or a plumber instead of having to take two years of foreign language etc. If we handled our pre-college schooling better we wouldn't need to offer free education to maximize the potential of adults.

If we start picking 'winners and losers' in terms of what people should be learning, we'll have a highly distorted market and then all the charges that conservatives have about socialism will be true. People should choose whatever they want in terms of what they think makes the most sense. Sure women's studies is sort of useless, that's why most people don't take it because they know it won't lead anywhere. But then again, if it weren't for the humanities we would have never had thinkers that thought of things like equality, democracy, and so on which kicked off the enlightenment and shaped the world we have today.

If the USA created a nation of trades people, that's fine but you'd just be subsidizing the entire country to ruin in a generation or two when people don't have the education or ability to invent themselves the products, ideas and things of the future.

Did you know for instance that even with all the hoopla surrounding the internet, we have 1/2 as many graduates in computer science in the USA now as was in the mid 1980s? Meanwhile countries like China and India are churning out these people in record numbers. In the next generation, they will create the next silicon valley and they will control the tech industry. Meanwhile under your plan, the US will have great mechanics and plumbers.

Now I'm not saying that we should give free education to all to do whatever the hell they want. Actually I don't even propose any specific numbers. I am just arguing that philosophically that this is the right thing to do and it's up to society (which in our system sadly means politicians) to figure out the exact numbers that work out through trial and error and continuous adjustment by taking into account the changing realities on the ground.

The fact is, we're moving in the other direction more and more of leaving people completely to their own devices in all the developed world (witness all the talk of austerity). While this is fine for the rich because they will always be able to afford everything, for everyone else this is going to be an increasing problem as they will have more and more barriers to them maximizing their potential. And then all of society will suffer because many talented and brilliant people will not be able to contribute to society.

[Supreme]

Going once