Almost 80% of philosophy majors favor socialism, poll finds (US)

(Jul 26, 2019 02:21 AM)Seattle Wrote:

Quote:Scandinavian countries can only afford to have socialist policies (which they've been moving away from due to their unsustainable costs) because they have capitalist economies. Some socialist policies do not make a government or its economy socialist. But yes, even the US is a mixed economy (free market and government regulation).

Okay, then how do those things provide economic value (someone willing to pay for it out of their own pocket)?
Yeah, and the military could make a profit if it were a mercenary force for hire. But we're not talking "ifs" here; we're talking about things as they are (as Billvon listed them). Anything else is either your own argument or a straw man.

No one disputed Billvon's definition of socialism, only him conflating cooperative action through government with socialism. That would make every government part socialist, and that's nonsense.

No, it would not be nonsense. Most every government is part socialist, that is the point. A military base in your town will provide economic value. The military people will spend their salaries locally, jobs are provided, civilians will be hired. Aircraft purchased by the military is made by private company and jobs are provided there as well (and profit).

What it won't do is provide as much benefit as a manufacturer of a reusable project rather than bombs, for instance.

The ATC provides jobs just like they would do if their funding came from stockholders instead of taxpayers.

Retire your "straw man" and refrain from speaking on subjects where you have no knowledge or continue to embarrass yourself, mate.

Most every government is not "part socialist". Socialism is about more than high taxes, redistribution, or simple cooperation. If you're defining simple cooperation through government as socialist, you've made the word meaningless in its breadth. IOW, if most every government is socialist then no government is. It becomes a distinction without difference, and is just a feature of how any government works, rather than a distinct political/economic theory.

Plenty of things done by governments have secondary economic benefits. And most governments spending taxpayer money doesn't equal socialism.

Apparently, you're so fond of socialism that you imagine it everywhere. Ah, to believe in ghosts so much that you actually see them.

(Jul 26, 2019 02:54 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 26, 2019 02:21 AM)Seattle Wrote:

Quote:Scandinavian countries can only afford to have socialist policies (which they've been moving away from due to their unsustainable costs) because they have capitalist economies. Some socialist policies do not make a government or its economy socialist. But yes, even the US is a mixed economy (free market and government regulation).

Okay, then how do those things provide economic value (someone willing to pay for it out of their own pocket)?
Yeah, and the military could make a profit if it were a mercenary force for hire. But we're not talking "ifs" here; we're talking about things as they are (as Billvon listed them). Anything else is either your own argument or a straw man.

No one disputed Billvon's definition of socialism, only him conflating cooperative action through government with socialism. That would make every government part socialist, and that's nonsense.

No, it would not be nonsense. Most every government is part socialist, that is the point. A military base in your town will provide economic value. The military people will spend their salaries locally, jobs are provided, civilians will be hired. Aircraft purchased by the military is made by private company and jobs are provided there as well (and profit).

What it won't do is provide as much benefit as a manufacturer of a reusable project rather than bombs, for instance.

The ATC provides jobs just like they would do if their funding came from stockholders instead of taxpayers.

Retire your "straw man" and refrain from speaking on subjects where you have no knowledge or continue to embarrass yourself, mate.

Most every government is not "part socialist". Socialism is about more than high taxes, redistribution, or simple cooperation. If you're defining simple cooperation through government as socialist, you've made the word meaningless in its breadth. IOW, if most every government is socialist then no government is. It becomes a distinction without difference, and is just a feature of how any government works, rather than a distinct political/economic theory.

Plenty of things done by governments have secondary economic benefits. And most governments spending taxpayer money doesn't equal socialism.

Apparently, you're so fond of socialism that you imagine it everywhere. Ah, to believe in ghosts so much that you actually see them.  

No, the issue is that I'm not ignorant. You keep raising "cooperation" "taxes" "redistribution". You can have a capitalist economy with high taxes, a lot of income redistribution and cooperation has nothing to do with it.

If the means of production is government owned that is the very definition of socialism. The means of production in the military is owned by the government just like it would be if our government nationalized the airline or oil industries.

It's an entirely socialized government if they own all industries and if there is no private enterprise. There are very few countries like that. It's like talking about communism. Communism is the idealized state. No country ever got there. The ones that you might be thinking of were socialist governments with the stated goal of trying to become a communist state.

It doesn't matter what word you put in your name. Those are the definitions.

You don't know what you are talking about in this particular case and you aren't capable (apparently) of accepting that so you just continue to dig your hole.

(Jul 26, 2019 03:28 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 26, 2019 02:54 AM)Syne Wrote: Most every government is not "part socialist". Socialism is about more than high taxes, redistribution, or simple cooperation. If you're defining simple cooperation through government as socialist, you've made the word meaningless in its breadth. IOW, if most every government is socialist then no government is. It becomes a distinction without difference, and is just a feature of how any government works, rather than a distinct political/economic theory.

Plenty of things done by governments have secondary economic benefits. And most governments spending taxpayer money doesn't equal socialism.

Apparently, you're so fond of socialism that you imagine it everywhere. Ah, to believe in ghosts so much that you actually see them.  

No, the issue is that I'm not ignorant. You keep raising "cooperation" "taxes" "redistribution". You can have a capitalist economy with high taxes, a lot of income redistribution and cooperation has nothing to do with it.

If the means of production is government owned that is the very definition of socialism. The means of production in the military is owned by the government just like it would be if our government nationalized the airline or oil industries.

It's an entirely socialized government if they own all industries and if there is no private enterprise. There are very few countries like that. It's like talking about communism. Communism is the idealized state. No country ever got there. The ones that you might be thinking of were socialist governments with the stated goal of trying to become a communist state.

It doesn't matter what word you put in your name. Those are the definitions.

You don't know what you are talking about in this particular case and you aren't capable (apparently) of accepting that so you just continue to dig your hole.

Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.

(Jul 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 26, 2019 03:28 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 26, 2019 02:54 AM)Syne Wrote: Most every government is not "part socialist". Socialism is about more than high taxes, redistribution, or simple cooperation. If you're defining simple cooperation through government as socialist, you've made the word meaningless in its breadth. IOW, if most every government is socialist then no government is. It becomes a distinction without difference, and is just a feature of how any government works, rather than a distinct political/economic theory.

Plenty of things done by governments have secondary economic benefits. And most governments spending taxpayer money doesn't equal socialism.

Apparently, you're so fond of socialism that you imagine it everywhere. Ah, to believe in ghosts so much that you actually see them.  

No, the issue is that I'm not ignorant. You keep raising "cooperation" "taxes" "redistribution". You can have a capitalist economy with high taxes, a lot of income redistribution and cooperation has nothing to do with it.

If the means of production is government owned that is the very definition of socialism. The means of production in the military is owned by the government just like it would be if our government nationalized the airline or oil industries.

It's an entirely socialized government if they own all industries and if there is no private enterprise. There are very few countries like that. It's like talking about communism. Communism is the idealized state. No country ever got there. The ones that you might be thinking of were socialist governments with the stated goal of trying to become a communist state.

It doesn't matter what word you put in your name. Those are the definitions.

You don't know what you are talking about in this particular case and you aren't capable (apparently) of accepting that so you just continue to dig your hole.

Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.  

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.  

https://medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialis...b31c9d2d9a

(Jul 27, 2019 02:51 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.  

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.  

https://medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialis...b31c9d2d9a

From your reference:

"The point of this article is...opposed to true socialist societies characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."

IOW, the only place it mentions "means of production" is to explicitly tell you that's NOT what the article is about. Learn to read.
And seeing as you did a complete faceplant, we have no other option but to assume you're just a poser who acts like he knows more than he actually does. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

(Jul 27, 2019 03:35 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 02:51 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.  

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.  

https://medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialis...b31c9d2d9a

From your reference:

"The point of this article is...opposed to true socialist societies characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."

IOW, the only place it mentions "means of production" is to explicitly tell you that's NOT what the article is about. Learn to read.
And seeing as you did a complete faceplant, we have no other option but to assume you're just a poser who acts like he knows more than he actually does. Thanks for clearing that up for us.  

I'm opposed to a true socialist economy as well, Sunshine. I have an MBA in International Business and a BA in Political Science. You might have graduated from high school. Let's just be real here for a change.

(Jul 27, 2019 03:55 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 03:35 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 02:51 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.  

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.  

https://medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialis...b31c9d2d9a

From your reference:

"The point of this article is...opposed to true socialist societies characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."

IOW, the only place it mentions "means of production" is to explicitly tell you that's NOT what the article is about. Learn to read.
And seeing as you did a complete faceplant, we have no other option but to assume you're just a poser who acts like he knows more than he actually does. Thanks for clearing that up for us.  

I'm opposed to a true socialist economy as well, Sunshine. I have an MBA in International Business and a BA in Political Science. You might have graduated from high school. Let's just be real here for a change.

Again, NO ONE claimed you were for a "true socialist economy". You do know what "straw man" means, right? O_o
At this point, I can only assume you don't. A straw man is where you argue against a claim that has not been made, usually to avoid an actual claim made or distract from supporting your own.

Only the insecure or posers feel the need to tout credentials online...where anyone can claim to be anything. It's like celebrity name dropping without so much as a picture with them. People do it to thinking it will impress others, but everyone sees right through it and no one gives a crap. If you had and learned anything from said education, you should be able to support your claims. Instead you do the complete opposite. If you paid for degrees, you should see about a refund.

(Jul 27, 2019 04:17 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 03:55 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 03:35 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 02:51 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 27, 2019 12:18 AM)Syne Wrote: Okay, then find me a credible reference that supports your idiosyncratic definition of "means of production" to explicitly include those things mentioned by Billvon.
Here's your big chance to redeem yourself, prove me wrong, or whatever else you think you're trying to accomplish. Otherwise, we'll just accept that you can't support what you claim.  

And you keep saying the same thing about mixed economies and non-pure forms of government, when NO ONE has disputed either. You're just making a lot of hay out of nothing.  

https://medium.com/@DanWebb69/a-socialis...b31c9d2d9a

From your reference:

"The point of this article is...opposed to true socialist societies characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."

IOW, the only place it mentions "means of production" is to explicitly tell you that's NOT what the article is about. Learn to read.
And seeing as you did a complete faceplant, we have no other option but to assume you're just a poser who acts like he knows more than he actually does. Thanks for clearing that up for us.  

I'm opposed to a true socialist economy as well, Sunshine. I have an MBA in International Business and a BA in Political Science. You might have graduated from high school. Let's just be real here for a change.

Again, NO ONE claimed you were for a "true socialist economy". You do know what "straw man" means, right? O_o
At this point, I can only assume you don't. A straw man is where you argue against a claim that has not been made, usually to avoid an actual claim made or distract from supporting your own.

Only the insecure or posers feel the need to tout credentials online...where anyone can claim to be anything. It's like celebrity name dropping without so much as a picture with them. People do it to thinking it will impress others, but everyone sees right through it and no one gives a crap. If you had and learned anything from said education, you should be able to support your claims. Instead you do the complete opposite. If you paid for degrees, you should see about a refund.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm being boorish toward you. You are rather tiring however and not that interesting. If I'm wrong, and you're not just an ignorant bitter person, I'll see that eventually and address you as such. In the meantime...

IOW, Seattle can't support his claims and has finally tired of making straw men in the hopes of distracting from that fact (because they don't work).

Sorry, AOC and Bernie Sanders: Scandinavia Is No Socialist Paradise

“Whatever you think about Sweden and what we did, you have to realize that we had a great society first,” Johan Norberg, a Swedish historian, filmmaker, and Cato Institute senior fellow, said in a recent lecture titled “No, Bernie! Scandinavia Is Not Socialist!”

“We were incredibly wealthy, we trusted each other socially, there was a decent life for everybody. That’s what made it possible to experiment with socialism; then it began to undermine many of those preconditions,”
...
However, the Constitutional Rights Foundation explains how the Swedish government places its heaviest taxes on the middle and lower classes, and all of the benefits they have such as universal health care and government-sponsored college education comes from steep taxes. Norberg pointed to the same data in his speech.

According to a Tax Foundation report, “Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers.”
...
Danish Prime Minister [Lars Lokke] Rasmussen: ‘Some in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy.’
...
“The bottom line: Copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalism and pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle-class spending and wages, minimal reliance on corporate taxation, and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its health care system,”

(Jul 24, 2019 01:20 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 24, 2019 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote: That's all you got? Well, I did assume you were only asking so you could pretend to be better than others, without having anything of significant substance yourself. 

Nope. Just waiting for you to catch up.

IOW, you're just posturing and don't have the wherewithal to share your own take, after baiting others to share theirs. Your silence speaks volumes.