What, exactly, is objectionable about "socialism"?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Many??? Like what?

Good question MRD.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Many (medical breakthroughs in UK) ?? Like what?

Here's a list of accomplishments from a UK tax payer funded organization, the MRC (Medical Research Council)

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/index.htm

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

For the sake of argument, let's say Obama is a "socialist". (We're really talking about the "Social Democrat" part of the political spectrum, but that's a debate for another day.)

So, what?

How is this a full repudiation of capitalism / the market system? How is the modest raising of taxes in exchange for a broader safety net such a bad thing? Does anyone really believe this is the first step toward complete socialism/communism?

Exactly how is freedom eroded in this hypothetical? Doesn't broader (practical) access to healthcare result in greater "freedom" for many (hell, for all, when we're talking about the end of sharp cost-shifting)? Aren't the (growing) gaps in coverage we have now a form of "unfreedom"?

I get the hard-right, purist libertarian view that taxes for roads, for instance, is a form of unfreedom. I'm talking about the more generic conservative view.

It seems to me that trading in the really high rollercoaster for a more tempered material existence would be attractive to just about everyone. How many genuinely need that extra 500 sq ft in a home of 4000? Isn't this part of how we got to the current situation?

(And can we avoid talk about "Satan's plan" and ad hominem smears of "Marxist!")

Doesn't this really all boil down to an aversion for (even the potential) for higher taxes? "I got mine, let everyone else figure out how to deal with their own problems" (I would argue that low taxes + higher deficits amounts to selfishness for the today, deferring problems to later generations, but that's a debate for another day.)

I guess I'm really struggling with how greater government involvement in economic matters is such a horrific development that leads to inevitable calamity.

(For the record, I favor a much more centrist approach and believe that Obama will push in that direction in the interests of forging greater national consensus.)

LOL - I'm counting a whole lot of questions in this post... but go get 'em!

See Canada, pre-Thatcher UK, and France. I think government control is also a slippery slope. So see the USSR, the PRC, Cuba.

People are still praising the U.S.'s resiliant capitalist system. Remember when Europe called this financial crisis largely a U.S. phenomenon a few weeks ago? Well, what really was happening is U.S. lenders, less enmeshed with the government, were quicker to discern and publicise their catastrophic problems than European counterparts. But for U.S. leadership, iroically stemming from U.S. free enterprise's original self-diagnosis, all the socialist countries of Europ would still be staggering along in a blind torpor, heading for depression and untold human mysery. If the U.S. goes socialist, it will destry an essential part of what makes the U.S. great, what makes it the most innovative and dynamic society in history.

But I'm starting to think the whole country has gone wussified like you, Ma'ake.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

See Canada, pre-Thatcher UK, and France. I think government control is also a slippery slope. So see the USSR, the PRC, Cuba.

These are bizarre examples of a slippery slope towards heavy government intervention given that pretty much all of these countries used to have kings, monarchies, aristocracies, czars (or tsars, for crossword puzzle purposes), etc.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

These are bizarre examples of a slippery slope towards heavy government intervention given that pretty much all of these countries used to have kings, monarchies, aristocracies, czars (or tsars, for crossword puzzle purposes), etc.

Shallow. The UK has been free of monarchy for longer than we have, as a practical matter. In fact, a thousand years from now historians will recognize that the Americal Revolution was just the climax of a long road climbed by Britons for millenea. This is the irony: because the UK restored free enterprise and civil liberties absent from our world since Julius Caesar without having to kill its royalty, it never had to kill its royalty and they still live as ornaments.

UK's experimentation with socialism and abridgement of civil liberties (still ongoing) is actually a cautionary tale for us. We and our mother country are comparable, indeed of a piece, in our historical fight agains authoritarianism. When Hitler, Stalin, Marx, etc. railed agaisnt the filthy, materialistic capitalist nations (as Waters' and Lebowski's friends the Islamofacists do now), they were primarily talking about Great Britain, though GB's maturing and restless offspring to the west loomed large.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Shallow. The UK has been free of monarchy for longer than we have, as a practical matter. In fact, a thousand years from now historians will recognize that the Americal Revolution was just the climax of a long road climbed by Britons for millenea. This is the irony: because the UK restored free enterprise and civil liberties absent from our world since Julius Caesar without having to kill its royalty, it never had to kill its royalty and they still live as ornaments.

UK's experimentation with socialism and abridgement of civil liberties (still ongoing) is actually a cautionary tale for us. We and our mother country are comparable, indeed of a piece, in our historical fight agains authoritarianism. When Hitler, Stalin, Marx, etc. railed agaisnt the filthy, materialistic capitalist nations (as Waters' and Lebowski's friends the Islamofacists do now), they were primarily talking about Great Britain, though GB's maturing and restless offspring to the west loomed large.

LOL. The UK has been free of monarchy? I know you have been there....did you happen to look at the coins? the stamps? The palace in the middle of Westminster? Where does the Queen get the dosh to buy all those hats? The entire royal family basically lives off the dole.

From a legal perspective, yes I agree that the royals are mere symbols. From a financial perspective, they are the biggest welfare cases in Europe.

Next time you run into the Queen, refuse to bow. See how well that goes over with the general population. You will quickly see how far Europe has truly strayed from its dynastic origins.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

LOL. The UK has been free of monarchy? I know you have been there....did you happen to look at the coins? the stamps? The palace in the middle of Westminster? Where does the Queen get the dosh to buy all those hats? The entire royal family basically lives off the dole.

From a legal perspective, yes I agree that the royals are mere symbols. From a financial perspective, they are the biggest welfare cases in Europe.

Next time you run into the Queen, refuse to bow. See how well that goes over with the general population. You will quickly see how far Europe has truly strayed from its dynastic origins.

Yes, I've been there. Nothing in your post contradicts my point. But I think your treating "Europe" as a single monolithic phenomenon is way wrong.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes, I've been there. Nothing in your post contradicts my point. But I think your treating "Europe" as a single monolithic phenomenon is way wrong.

My point is that comparing Europe to the US is a bit disingenuous given that their economies are all rooted in principles of monarchy, royalty, etc.. The US was founded on principles of democracy and capitalism.

If you were to put them all on a continuum, with Monarchy at the right and Democracy (or republicanism) at the left, Europe has gradually shifted from the far right towards the middle. Given Europe's roots, of course it will tend to be more socialist than the US.

The US never really was purely on the left, as I pointed out earlier, because we have always had a system of taxation in place, and welfare/social programs for quite a long time. So we are moving from the left towards the middle.

I personally do not believe that we would ever move past the middle because it simply is not in our DNA to do so.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

My point is that comparing Europe to the US is a bit disingenuous given that their economies are all rooted in principles of monarchy, royalty, etc.. The US was founded on principles of democracy and capitalism.

If you were to put them all on a continuum, with Monarchy at the right and Democracy (or republicanism) at the left, Europe has gradually shifted from the far right towards the middle. Given Europe's roots, of course it will tend to be more socialist than the US.

The US never really was purely on the left, as I pointed out earlier, because we have always had a system of taxation in place, and welfare/social programs for quite a long time. So we are moving from the left towards the middle.

I personally do not believe that we would ever move past the middle because it simply is not in our DNA to do so.

WHat does that mean, to say an economy is founded on principles of monarchy? IN terms of the function or structuer of their economies, what ius different becasue they were founded on principles of monarchy?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat does that mean, to say an economy is founded on principles of monarchy? IN terms of the function or structuer of their economies, what ius different becasue they were founded on principles of monarchy?

Selective land ownership, caste system with no upward mobility (as 71 points out), only certain people could own and operate businesses, heavy ridiculous taxation without representation.....coupled with the monarch having the responsibility of providing for the common defense. Granted, not sure how expansive welfare/social programs were. Also, the monarch in large part controlled the clergy.

You see faint traces of that in Europe still today, esp with regards to royals living off revenues generated from all their land grabbing. There is still a general deference to royals in all things, despite the fact that in many of those countries, actual leaders are elected and leave office much like in our system. Common defense has morphed into social programs such as medicine.

In contrast, our elected officials are out after a period of a few years. Anyone can start a business. Today anyone can own land (although not previously) . We have privatized businsses, but not entirely....we also have government oversight, regulatory committees, SEC reporting requirements...all things that are rooted in socialist principles of government intervention. I think the big difference is simply the degree to which we practice our socialism. But i dont ever think we would get to the point where the average Joe Six Pack would stomach using our tax dollars to support an extravagant lifestyle for the Clintons and all their heirs in perpetuity.