Liberty in Socialism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

I’ve been an avid lurker on this site for quite some time now, but just created a profile in order to contribute to this discussion.

I’ll try to stay out of the more advanced theoretical discussion and take a more practical approach.

Isn’t it, in the end, just a matter of individual preferences?

I’ve been living in a Scandinavian country with high marginal tax rates, a large public sector, public education and public health care my entire life. It is not a socialist country, there are no 5-year plans and there is no government telling me what to produce and what not to produce. If I work, I have to pay taxes. In return I get quality education, health care etc. And yes, some of my income is redistributed to those who are not as well of as me. There is no feeling of state intervention in my day to day life. I’m free to do whatever I choose to do, given the constraints of the society I live in. If I choose to take a long education, I’ll end up paying higher taxes once I graduate than someone who did not take a long education. My after tax-income will still be higher though. How is this, in practice, different from an American taking a student loan (or parents saving up), which she has to pay back afterwards?

As I see it in this thread, the main argument against socialism is that it prevents you from getting rich. Even if that was correct, so what? Is the possibility for accumulation of wealth the pennicale of liberty? Not from my point of view.

Are there problems with Social Democratic countries? Yes, of course:

  • Are the marginal tax rates too high? Possibly. Especially if you look at it from a long run perspective.
  • Is the public sector too big (and hence inefficient)? I think so. There is so much waste in a large public sector, but I do believe there is a way of correcting this (another discussion).
  • Does free-riding occur? Most definitely. But I can guarantee that there is a lot of people who work hard, pay their taxes and maintain a good living standard. So what if we live in smaller houses and drive smaller (and fewer) cars. Last time I checked the level of consumption did not equal living standards.
142

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
I’ve been an avid lurker on this site for quite some time now, but just created a profile in order to contribute to this discussion.

I’ll try to stay out of the more advanced theoretical discussion and take a more practical approach.

Isn’t it, in the end, just a matter of individual preferences?

I’ve been living in a Scandinavian country with high marginal tax rates, a large public sector, public education and public health care my entire life. It is not a socialist country, there are no 5-year plans and there is no government telling me what to produce and what not to produce. If I work, I have to pay taxes. In return I get quality education, health care etc. And yes, some of my income is redistributed to those who are not as well of as me. There is no feeling of state intervention in my day to day life. I’m free to do whatever I choose to do, given the constraints of the society I live in. If I choose to take a long education, I’ll end up paying higher taxes once I graduate than someone who did not take a long education. My after tax-income will still be higher though. How is this, in practice, different from an American taking a student loan (or parents saving up), which she has to pay back afterwards?

As I see it in this thread, the main argument against socialism is that it prevents you from getting rich. Even if that was correct, so what? Is the possibility for accumulation of wealth the pennicale of liberty? Not from my point of view.

Are there problems with Social Democratic countries? Yes, of course:

  • Are the marginal tax rates too high? Possibly. Especially if you look at it from a long run perspective.
  • Is the public sector too big (and hence inefficient)? I think so. There is so much waste in a large public sector, but I do believe there is a way of correcting this (another discussion).
  • Does free-riding occur? Most definitely. But I can guarantee that there is a lot of people who work hard, pay their taxes and maintain a good living standard. So what if we live in smaller houses and drive smaller (and fewer) cars. Last time I checked the level of consumption did not equal living standards. [/quote]

The main argument is not that it “prevents you from getting rich”. It does, which is a problem in and of itself, but the main problem is that state run education, health care and pension systems inevitably mean a control of the state over your life that many people find unbearable and yet are forced at gunpoint to contribute to it.

Many of us do not necessarily want the state to provide a nice cushy life for us, just to get out of the way.

I am afraid that I cannot explain freedom to you if you automatically mistake it for selfishness and greed.

143

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

It’s obvious from your posts, you still have a lot to learn about the world.

His wife owns stock and works. There is essentially no one that owns and exists on capital without currently working and even fewer that didn’t at least work to get it. So my question is who exactly is the evil capitalist you speak of? Who is it that has us in chains? The evil specter from your philosophy that needs to be overthrown doesn’t exist. How is it the guy that owns my company takes advantage of me when I agree to work here because it makes my life better AND he works harder than me? Why do you continue to dodge questions?

Every time you get your argument completely destroyed you keep trying to change it. Oh, I didn’t mean that kind of “own”. Oh, it only counts if you get to be your own boss.

In capitalism everyone is there own boss. Every action is entirely voluntary. the only way someone can not be their own boss is by force of something like socialism.

However, there is one large group that fits into evil capitalist definition you have. The retired. They live exclusively of of capital they earned and saved. These are the only people that fit the description you hate so much.

Only for people my age, because of social security and the government, I’ll have to pay for the retirement of someone else in addition to my own.

144

Who the hell are you to be admonishing someone about ignoring inconvenient facts?

145

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Who the hell are you to be admonishing someone about ignoring inconvenient facts?
[/quote]

Who would I need to be to recognize the uneducated idealism of youth?

However florelius is someone that flat out dismisses everyone contradicting the labor theory of value as “bourgeous economists” so he is practically advertises his MO.

146

OK, I have read the responses and it seems to only affirms my own fears concerning the true nature of socialism. Ben Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Truer words have rarely been spoken.

The liberty found within capitalism does comes with risk - this risk of failure or poverty seems to be the only rationale for accepting state control of the means of providing material goods, healthcare, housing, etc. To quote Karl Marx : “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - this forced equality is always done at someone’s expense for someone else’s benefit. The one suffering the loss is never considered. Only those recieving the benefit of the forced sharing are ever lifted up as the model/goal of socialism.

That is why the concept of private property must be anathema within a socialist economic model. If the individual has private property rights, then the individual, not the state, controls the use of and wealth generating capacity of that property. He is not actively participating in the forced equality and must be forced (if he is not willing) to give up that private property so that the state can operate and distribute that wealth as it sees fit.

America is the perfect model of compasisonate capitalism, especially prior to the 1960’s - hospitals and orphanges and homesless shelters - all founded and funded by charitable organizations - most of them by church groups - (Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals).

In capitalism ALL have the liberty to become wealthy or just rich enough to be content if they so choose. Everyone who accumulates wealth has the freedom to do with their wealth as they see fit - including charitable uses - this leagcy of freedom-based charity lives strong even today with the US outgiving in percentage of wealth (not just net totals) all other nations. It is a charitable nation because it is a free nation. But it is about so much more than just wealth - the individual liberty of the human being is the greatest single gift of life - to be free to do as you choose in all matters of your life is beyond amazing.

I don’t need the state telling me what to eat, what not to eat, not to smoke, when to work, where to work, how to exercise, where to walk, when to walk, when to sleep, where to sleep - I am an adult - I can choose these things for myself and if I choose risky behaviors such as naked rock climbing on my private mountain while smoking weed and firing my AK-47 at the passing clouds - well, then so be it - I chose it and I bear the responsiblity. If I choose to be a poor student, not apply myself, skip college and perform half-ass work - I deserve the shack I get to live in the POS i get to drive - My choices - my consequences.

The fallacy of socialism is that we all DESERVE to be equal - that we are owed a certain standard of existence and that we can force everyone to share with us so that we can have it.

We do not deserve to be equal - we are not owed a certain standard of living.

We are only created equal and then we, by the strength of our character and the determination of our will, have to choose what it is that we will become - good or bad, rich or poor, happy or sad - it is up to us.

147

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

It’s obvious from your posts, you still have a lot to learn about the world.

[/quote]

its obviuos from your your post that you cannot discuss in a civil manner!

you have stated in many posts that I need to grow up, learn about the world and that you wanted to punch me in the face. What is that, some retorical tricks for trying to get an overhand in the argument hm…
If you check my posts I never insult ( except when I called you dumb after you called me dumb ) or state that someone is infantil or etc. insults does not make a relevant argument.

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

It’s obvious from your posts, you still have a lot to learn about the world.

His wife owns stock and works. There is essentially no one that owns and exists on capital without currently working and even fewer that didn’t at least work to get it. So my question is who exactly is the evil capitalist you speak of? Who is it that has us in chains? The evil specter from your philosophy that needs to be overthrown doesn’t exist. How is it the guy that owns my company takes advantage of me when I agree to work here because it makes my life better AND he works harder than me? Why do you continue to dodge questions?

Every time you get your argument completely destroyed you keep trying to change it. Oh, I didn’t mean that kind of “own”. Oh, it only counts if you get to be your own boss.

In capitalism everyone is there own boss. Every action is entirely voluntary. the only way someone can not be their own boss is by force of something like socialism.

However, there is one large group that fits into evil capitalist definition you have. The retired. They live exclusively of of capital they earned and saved. These are the only people that fit the description you hate so much.

Only for people my age, because of social security and the government, I’ll have to pay for the retirement of someone else in addition to my own.[/quote]

to the rest of your post.

his wife doesnt fit the definition of capitalist that I gave. here main source of income are from wages, not profit. its that simple. my argument was not destroyed, it was missunderstod, he did not get what I ment.

To have words without meening is meeningless. If everybody is a capitalist ( as some of you think ), then that word has no point existing.

and last, I dont beliefe that capitalists are evil. I dont beliefe in evil. I simply think that humanity would be better of with a differnet system than capitalisme, and I have given arguments plenty times to why. If you dont agree, thats fine.

149

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Who the hell are you to be admonishing someone about ignoring inconvenient facts?
[/quote]

Who would I need to be to recognize the uneducated idealism of youth?

However florelius is someone that flat out dismisses everyone contradicting the labor theory of value as “bourgeous economists” so he is practically advertises his MO.
[/quote]

first what does MO meen?

but both keynesian and austrian are burgeous or rightwing if you like. Its the same as trusting a socialistic critic of adam smith. they are both biased. We discuss politics and ideology, we are all biased.

150

Modus Operandi

151

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

America is the perfect model of compasisonate capitalism, especially prior to the 1960’s - hospitals and orphanges and homesless shelters - all founded and funded by charitable organizations - most of them by church groups - (Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals).

[/quote]

Keep in mind many people still payed a significant portion of their income to the church at that point in time; although I understand the difference in that it is an elective contribution, rather than forced taxation.

152

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

America is the perfect model of compasisonate capitalism, especially prior to the 1960’s - hospitals and orphanges and homesless shelters - all founded and funded by charitable organizations - most of them by church groups - (Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals).

[/quote]

Keep in mind many people still payed a significant portion of their income to the church at that point in time; although I understand the difference in that it is an elective contribution, rather than forced taxation.[/quote]

Yeah, I would pay a significant amount too if I didn’t see 20-40% of my money taken.

153

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Who the hell are you to be admonishing someone about ignoring inconvenient facts?
[/quote]

Who would I need to be to recognize the uneducated idealism of youth?

However florelius is someone that flat out dismisses everyone contradicting the labor theory of value as “bourgeous economists” so he is practically advertises his MO.
[/quote]

first what does MO meen?

but both keynesian and austrian are burgeous or rightwing if you like. Its the same as trusting a socialistic critic of adam smith. they are both biased. We discuss politics and ideology, we are all biased.
[/quote]

Maybe so, but how does that change that the labor theory of value is almost prima facie absurd and that all conclusions drawn from it are therefore flawed?

This is also a Marxian idea, that there is no objective truth but just opinions shapoed by teh class you belong too.

This idea may even have some merit, unfortunately it does not save an idea so onviously wrong and outdated as the LTV.

154

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
OK, I have read the responses and it seems to only affirms my own fears concerning the true nature of socialism. Ben Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Truer words have rarely been spoken.
[/quote]

What is then the definition of essential liberty?

There are two main arguments for state intervention when it comes to redistribution: The big number pool and adverse selection. The latter part of the above quote is true for pure socialism. In social democratic/Scandinavian countries this forced equality occurs to less of an extent.

[quote]
America is the perfect model of compasisonate capitalism, especially prior to the 1960’s - hospitals and orphanges and homesless shelters - all founded and funded by charitable organizations - most of them by church groups - (Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals).

In capitalism ALL have the liberty to become wealthy or just rich enough to be content if they so choose. Everyone who accumulates wealth has the freedom to do with their wealth as they see fit - including charitable uses - this leagcy of freedom-based charity lives strong even today with the US outgiving in percentage of wealth (not just net totals) all other nations. It is a charitable nation because it is a free nation. But it is about so much more than just wealth - the individual liberty of the human being is the greatest single gift of life - to be free to do as you choose in all matters of your life is beyond amazing.

[quote]

This is an appealing argument at first glance. However, economic theory has shown time and time gain that if the provision of public goods (charities) is left to voluntary provision, then the amount of the public good provided will not be optimal.

[quote]
I don’t need the state telling me what to eat, what not to eat, not to smoke, when to work, where to work, how to exercise, where to walk, when to walk, when to sleep, where to sleep - I am an adult - I can choose these things for myself and if I choose risky behaviors such as naked rock climbing on my private mountain while smoking weed and firing my AK-47 at the passing clouds - well, then so be it - I chose it and I bear the responsiblity. If I choose to be a poor student, not apply myself, skip college and perform half-ass work - I deserve the shack I get to live in the POS i get to drive - My choices - my consequences.

[quote]

Agreed. But how does this to any extent relate to the tax rate in a given country? In many instance I find that personal freedom is rather limited in USA as compared to Scandinavian countries.

I do not view socialism in the same way. No, we do not all deserve to be equal. But we are all obliged to contribute to the society we live in and ensure that even those who are not well off maintain a certain standard of living. I’ll guarantee you that those who are on transfer income in Scandinavian countries do not live glorified lives and they all pariticipate in job training. So yeah, I believe we are in fact owed a certain standard of living. However, how we use our lives beyond that is not the state’s problem.

Edit: my quoting skills suck. Sorry for that.

155

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

This is an appealing argument at first glance. However, economic theory has shown time and time gain that if the provision of public goods (charities) is left to voluntary provision, then the amount of the public good provided will not be optimal.
[/quote]

What is “optimal” is a mere value judgement and no economist worth his salt would make such a claim.

156

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

This is an appealing argument at first glance. However, economic theory has shown time and time gain that if the provision of public goods (charities) is left to voluntary provision, then the amount of the public good provided will not be optimal.
[/quote]

What is “optimal” is a mere value judgement and no economist worth his salt would make such a claim.

[/quote]

Sorry. I refer to Pareto Optimality and I’m also well aware that there is no guarantee that the government will provide this amount of the public good.

157

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

This is an appealing argument at first glance. However, economic theory has shown time and time gain that if the provision of public goods (charities) is left to voluntary provision, then the amount of the public good provided will not be optimal.
[/quote]

What is “optimal” is a mere value judgement and no economist worth his salt would make such a claim.

[/quote]

Sorry. I refer to Pareto Optimality and I’m also well aware that there is no guarantee that the government will provide this amount of the public good. [/quote]

But Pareto optimality is an ever moving target.

What could bring us closer to it if not the free market, every government intervention must necessarily moves is away from it.

158

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]The Mage wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

so are you saying that it is impossble for everyone to own a bussines in our current system?
[/quote]

Are you actually reading my posts? No I am saying it is possible for everyone to own a business, or at least a part of a business here. And only if they want to. Some people don’t want to.[/quote]

I did not meen “own” as your wife does and still are a employee, but own as in owning a bussines and being nobodys employee. is that possible for everyone at once if everyone worked hard. [/quote]

It’s obvious from your posts, you still have a lot to learn about the world.

His wife owns stock and works. There is essentially no one that owns and exists on capital without currently working and even fewer that didn’t at least work to get it. So my question is who exactly is the evil capitalist you speak of? Who is it that has us in chains? The evil specter from your philosophy that needs to be overthrown doesn’t exist. How is it the guy that owns my company takes advantage of me when I agree to work here because it makes my life better AND he works harder than me? Why do you continue to dodge questions?

Every time you get your argument completely destroyed you keep trying to change it. Oh, I didn’t mean that kind of “own”. Oh, it only counts if you get to be your own boss.

In capitalism everyone is there own boss. Every action is entirely voluntary. the only way someone can not be their own boss is by force of something like socialism.

However, there is one large group that fits into evil capitalist definition you have. The retired. They live exclusively of of capital they earned and saved. These are the only people that fit the description you hate so much.

Only for people my age, because of social security and the government, I’ll have to pay for the retirement of someone else in addition to my own.[/quote]

to the rest of your post.

his wife doesnt fit the definition of capitalist that I gave. here main source of income are from wages, not profit. its that simple. my argument was not destroyed, it was missunderstod, he did not get what I ment.

To have words without meening is meeningless. If everybody is a capitalist ( as some of you think ), then that word has no point existing.

and last, I dont beliefe that capitalists are evil. I dont beliefe in evil. I simply think that humanity would be better of with a differnet system than capitalisme, and I have given arguments plenty times to why. If you dont agree, thats fine.

[/quote]

Telling you that you seem to lack experience is a civil and valid criticism.

For almost everyone, work is the critical factor that they live on. Even people that live off of “profit” are able to because they worked to get to that position. You cannot remove work from the equation. The only real group I can see you calling capitalists are the retired. BUT like I said, they got to their position through years of work. Do you think old people should have to continue to work in order to live?

If someone currently lives on “profit” but worked and saved for years to acquire that financial position, is what they are doing wrong? You think living off profit is wrong, so retiring is wrong.

159

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
I’ve been an avid lurker on this site for quite some time now, but just created a profile in order to contribute to this discussion.

I’ll try to stay out of the more advanced theoretical discussion and take a more practical approach.

Isn’t it, in the end, just a matter of individual preferences?

I’ve been living in a Scandinavian country with high marginal tax rates, a large public sector, public education and public health care my entire life. It is not a socialist country, there are no 5-year plans and there is no government telling me what to produce and what not to produce. If I work, I have to pay taxes. In return I get quality education, health care etc. And yes, some of my income is redistributed to those who are not as well of as me. There is no feeling of state intervention in my day to day life. I’m free to do whatever I choose to do, given the constraints of the society I live in. If I choose to take a long education, I’ll end up paying higher taxes once I graduate than someone who did not take a long education. My after tax-income will still be higher though. How is this, in practice, different from an American taking a student loan (or parents saving up), which she has to pay back afterwards?

As I see it in this thread, the main argument against socialism is that it prevents you from getting rich. Even if that was correct, so what? Is the possibility for accumulation of wealth the pennicale of liberty? Not from my point of view.

Are there problems with Social Democratic countries? Yes, of course:

  • Are the marginal tax rates too high? Possibly. Especially if you look at it from a long run perspective.
  • Is the public sector too big (and hence inefficient)? I think so. There is so much waste in a large public sector, but I do believe there is a way of correcting this (another discussion).
  • Does free-riding occur? Most definitely. But I can guarantee that there is a lot of people who work hard, pay their taxes and maintain a good living standard. So what if we live in smaller houses and drive smaller (and fewer) cars. Last time I checked the level of consumption did not equal living standards. [/quote]

The main argument is not that it “prevents you from getting rich”. It does, which is a problem in and of itself, but the main problem is that state run education, health care and pension systems inevitably mean a control of the state over your life that many people find unbearable and yet are forced at gunpoint to contribute to it.

Many of us do not necessarily want the state to provide a nice cushy life for us, just to get out of the way.

I am afraid that I cannot explain freedom to you if you automatically mistake it for selfishness and greed.

[/quote]

My main problem is that I believe individual property rights to be an inherent god given universal right. I believe forcing someone at gunpoint under threat of loss of freedom to hand over money for the benefit of someone else to be morally wrong.

160

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

America is the perfect model of compasisonate capitalism, especially prior to the 1960’s - hospitals and orphanges and homesless shelters - all founded and funded by charitable organizations - most of them by church groups - (Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals).

[/quote]

Keep in mind many people still payed a significant portion of their income to the church at that point in time; although I understand the difference in that it is an elective contribution, rather than forced taxation.[/quote]

Yeah, I would pay a significant amount too if I didn’t see 20-40% of my money taken.[/quote]

I agree. I give 10-15% annually to charities, and if I did not have my 25% marginal Tax rate it would be even higher.