I Need Arguments

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

A friend of mind argued to me the other day that Socialism would work under the following system:


All industries are state owned.

Part of the profit of the industry is taken by the government in the place of all tax.

The rest of the profit is split amongst the people in the form of a salary, similar to the Alaska oil industry dividends, proportional to the importance of thier job. Therefore not eliminating the initiative to shoot for a better job.

All people who have a job have a salary, therefore preventing executives from being able to make unlimited money. However the larger the industry, the more important it is and the higher the pay for it's executives.

Every person who is between 18 and retirement age must have a job. Eliminating leeches on society.

If more people exist than jobs, lower paying jobs are rotated regualry.

Retirement age is determined under the same system it is now.

Social programs like welfare, medicare, medicade and social security are drastically cut, limited, or eliminated all together.

extensive lotteries are used to collect revenue, to minimize the amount of money needed to be taken from the industries.

The individual retains the rights to buy and sell freely (as long as it does not interfere with the industries), free speech, press, asssembely, religion, privacy, firearms etc.

Things such as states' rights and others are also retained.

The government remains in the same form as it is now, as far as electing President, Congress etc. are concerned.

The News media remains free and regulations ensure that news corporations do not become larger than mid-sized, to ensure a variety of opinions exist in the news media pool.

The internet remains free, as long as the industries are not interfered with the industries.

regulation of industry and bussiness is as decentralized as possible, to minimize corruption.


This system is crap in my opinion but I am having trouble puting my arguments into words. The best two that I can think of is that it gives money to those who didn't earn it, it might weaken the economy, especially on the international level, although I can't put my finger on just how, and the pontential for corruption is vast. Also, it is definately oppossed to the beliefs of the founding fathers.

I am asking for you guys to further strengthen my arguments that I can use against this, Thanks.

[Guns R Cool]

One thing: If everyone makes the same amount of money, there would be no incentive to excel in life. If doctors and garbage men and doctors make the same, all I can say is you get what you pay for.

[Wadi66]

A friend of mind argued to me the other day that Socialism would work under the following system:In the first place your "friend" isn't talking about socialism at all. I think he/she needs to review what socialism is made out to be and stop pretending that his/her views are anything less than communistic.

1. All industries are state owned. This isn't Socialism, this is Communism.

2. Part of the profit of the industry is taken by the government in the place of all tax. And who is going to determine how much the government takes? The government? Trusting fool.

3. The rest of the profit is split amongst the people in the form of a salary, similar to the Alaska oil industry dividends, proportional to the importance of thier job. Therefore not eliminating the initiative to shoot for a better job. Socialism is supposedly to do away with the class system (a big complaint against capitalism), so receiving part of the profit proportional to the importance of their job is still capitalistic which an idealistic socialist would be against. Someone has a screw loose.

4. All people who have a job have a salary, therefore preventing executives from being able to make unlimited money. There it is again, communistic.
However the larger the industry, the more important it is and the higher the pay for it's executives. Oh but wait, this is capitalistic.

5. Every person who is between 18 and retirement age must have a job. Eliminating leeches on society. So the severly disabled are required to work?

6. If more people exist than jobs, lower paying jobs are rotated regualry. So if they aren't working because there aren't enough jobs and they've been rotated out, how to they live? There are no leeches so these people starve? Oh I get it, we take turns starving. That shows genius.

7. Retirement age is determined under the same system it is now. So when you retire, because SS and other programs have been reduced or eliminated, you get to starve cause you can't leech. Or do you ask your rotated out of work children to feed you instead of themselves or their children, or maybe everyone just gets less cause they have to share with the grandparents. Well its either that or shoot them.

8. Social programs like welfare, medicare, medicade and social security are drastically cut, limited, or eliminated all together. Man, you get old or sick and you're outta here.

9. extensive lotteries are used to collect revenue, to minimize the amount of money needed to be taken from the industries. So the government that has chosen to pay you a paltry sum is now going to entice you to gamble some of it away instead of saving what you can for when you're rotated out of your job. Got it.

10. The individual retains the rights to buy and sell freely (as long as it does not interfere with the industries), free speech, press, asssembely, religion, privacy, firearms etc. So then while you have the right, you can't exercise it because virtually everything worth buying and selling is already being bought or sold by the government. Will the starving populace be allowed to demostrate, if they have enough strength?

11. Things such as states' rights and others are also retained. This isn't socialism

12. The government remains in the same form as it is now, as far as electing President, Congress etc. are concerned. Again, not socialism, nor is it communism. Well by golly, someone doesn't want to give up capitalism and the republic after all. Someone is confused.

13. The News media remains free and regulations ensure that news corporations do not become larger than mid-sized, to ensure a variety of opinions exist in the news media pool. Ah yes, your friend needs to go to Russia. I hear they have "freedom" of the press too. All state owned of course.

14. The internet remains free, as long as the industries are not interfered with the industries. Again everything worth buying or selling is already being bought and sold. Free expression can't be had cause it conflicts with the "variety of opinions" in the media.

15. regulation of industry and bussiness is as decentralized as possible, to minimize corruption. Wait wait wait, government owned industry could become corrupt?

Now, I'm going to do a cut and paste in the next post. Read it, think about it.

[Wadi66]

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers' paradise" of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn't work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system-socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism-would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to pro-mote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit--and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive--enhancing components.

Prices
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant re-optimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit--and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world's wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world's largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people-human resources.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit-just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives. Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.
****

Follow this link
http://www.libertyhaven.com/index.html

They have a search bar below the annoying blinking winner crap. Put in anything you want to research. Try socialism. All kinds of things come up. Try capitalism, or communism, or welfare, or or or. Read to your hearts content.

[Madcowhunter]

Ask your friend if he thinks the government is planning on peacefully enforcing those initiatives.

[Bumblebee]

The individual retains the rights to buy and sell freely (as long as it does not interfere with the industries), free speech, press, asssembely, religion, privacy, firearms etc.
Let me see if I'm understanding this....the individual can retain free speech, press, religion, and firearms. Is that correct? Am I reading it wrong? If not, under the rules your friend is talking about, that would be gone too.

[PolyPartisan]

Wadi pretty much summed it up. Basically, the system is a bueracratic nightmare. There's no such thing as an uncorrupt bueracracy, but the smaller the bueracracy, the easier it is to control from the outside (Which is why capitalism is better than socialism, because the bueracracy is divided amongst many corporations, as opposed to just one government). Seeing as how that system demands one, single, HUGE bueracracy, it is inevitably very corrupt. Sure, it sounds great on paper, but such a complicated, idealistic system will collapse on itself.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Yah, I was going to say that your friend has his head up his ass if he thinks that's soclialism, but Wadi beat me to it.

[Dr. Madd]

Someone call for A doctor? *Readies dissection tools* Not you LABK... Your red friend's argument..



A friend of mind argued to me the other day that Socialism would work under the following system:


All industries are state owned.

Don't you mean =====? We saw how that worked in Russia. And point out that this would mean a monoply on a grand scale. Monoplies mean higher costs and lower quality. If Everyone has NO choice but to work for a monoply, then they have no choice but to take whatever pittance is paid them.


Part of the profit of the industry is taken by the government in the place of all tax.

And Again, who decides what the profit share is? It could well be and would likely be 90%-10% in the gov't's favor.


The rest of the profit is split amongst the people in the form of a salary, similar to the Alaska oil industry dividends, proportional to the importance of thier job. Therefore not eliminating the initiative to shoot for a better job.

Ah, but what's to stop them from "Appointing" friends, relatives, etc- into those positions? Nepotism, Cronieism and mutual back-scratching would reach untold levels of corruption.


All people who have a job have a salary, therefore preventing executives from being able to make unlimited money. However the larger the industry, the more important it is and the higher the pay for it's executives.

There is no such thing as unlimited money. All Wealth is finite. Tell them that the moment they started talking about paying one person more than another they've defeated the point of Socialism.


Every person who is between 18 and retirement age must have a job. Eliminating leeches on society.

And so The Gov't forcibly "protects people from themselves" like a mad Nanny from hell. Do they not realize what they are advocating is Slavery? What they have here is as bad or worse than any offense EVER committed by capitalism. I know this guy at work who barely lifts his finger to do anything than what is necessary to avoid termination. You would have this sort of goldbrick, by the Millions!!! This is not an elimination of Leeches on Society...
This is Government funding of the same!


If more people exist than jobs, lower paying jobs are rotated regualry.

Great! So he can trade jobs with his nephew every so often because his Father-in-law is in charge of the Job allocation ministry.


Retirement age is determined under the same system it is now.

Since a Socialist is advocating this, (Again, not you my friend) What does that tell you about our retirement age policy in this country?


Social programs like welfare, medicare, medicade and social security are drastically cut, limited, or eliminated all together.

Why keep them when you have something even bigger to suck up the money?


extensive lotteries are used to collect revenue, to minimize the amount of money needed to be taken from the industries.


Distract the people with promises of wealth they will only keep a small portion of. Remember the commandments of socialism impose a hefty progressive tax that will eat 80% of the lottery winnings. What's more, is it will create inequality once again.


The individual retains the rights to buy and sell freely (as long as it does not interfere with the industries), free speech, press, asssembely, religion, privacy, firearms etc.

When people are treated as children (i.e. Being given allowances), the government will start to see itself as a parent. Parents do not lat their kids have freedom of assembly, religion, and they certainly do not let their kids play with firearms unattended. That right will last about as long as Mike Nifong would in the North Carolina State Pen.


Things such as states' rights and others are also retained.

Counter-active to what the game plan is, folks. Socialism requires a centralized government. What if one of the states decides "The heck with this-We're going to back private industry"? Are they asking for a civil war?


The government remains in the same form as it is now, as far as electing President, Congress etc. are concerned.

See my note about Governmental parenting. One does not get to choose one's parentage.


The News media remains free and regulations ensure that news corporations do not become larger than mid-sized, to ensure a variety of opinions exist in the news media pool.

Again, state controlled industry, of which the media is one: But note they excluded the Media in this Socialist masterplan. What does tell US about the media? They don't need to control it.. It's on their side, ladies and gentlemen.


The internet remains free, as long as the industries are not interfered with the industries.

See my articles on Parentage.


regulation of industry and bussiness is as decentralized as possible, to minimize corruption.

Oh great, now you have fifty families controlling the industry instead of 500.
Tell them their plan asks too much of the human nature.



This system is crap in my opinion but I am having trouble puting my arguments into words. The best two that I can think of is that it gives money to those who didn't earn it, it might weaken the economy, especially on the international level, although I can't put my finger on just how, and the pontential for corruption is vast. Also, it is definately oppossed to the beliefs of the founding fathers.

I am asking for you guys to further strengthen my arguments that I can use against this, Thanks.

Try those arguments.

[Dr. Madd]

Yah, I was going to say that your friend has his head up his ass if he thinks that's soclialism, but Wadi beat me to it.


Would that not require an Excranioglutiectomy?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

yeah, yeah I guess it would

[Mr. Glass]

you dont need to pick it apart bit by bit....it's an easy logic flaw.

Any time you're able to define every variable, and define all states as their ideal, then just about ANY scenario is plausible.


If this, and IF that and IF maybe and IF but and IF then eventually there is nothing left but to agree.


What i woudl challenge is to give examples of where it has worked.

just my 2¢

-Doug

[Wadi66]

you dont need to pick it apart bit by bit....it's an easy logic flaw. sometimes its necessary to "pick apart" for others if they don't have a specific idea of its flaws, only generalities.
What i woudl challenge is to give examples of where it has worked. With people who are enthralled with Socialism, if you say "show me where it has worked", they'll say it hasn't worked because it wasn't pure socialism. The logic of WHY it didn't work completely escapes them. Usually the ones most enthralled are high school and college age people who haven't had to deal with the realities of human nature and the dynamics of the world we live in. So general statements fly right over their heads.

[Aurelius]

You can really easily sum up your argument quickly by stating that the conditions require a perfect system which is unattainable. Pure <insert governmental or economic system> always fail because of this.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

OOHRA!!! Thanks guys you killed that socialist s*it twice, pissed on it, buried it alive and then threw a grenade at the grave, and then ate the pieces of the body that flew everywhere!

[Dr. Madd]

OOHRA!!! Thanks guys you killed that socialist s*it twice, pissed on it, buried it alive and then threw a grenade at the grave, and then ate the pieces of the body that flew everywhere!

With fava beans and a fine chianti.