Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (406115)	1/23/2011 9:00:16 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

My working definition of socialism involves state ownership of assets. Do you know which word is used to describe an economic system where ownership of assets remains in private hands, but is controlled by the government? That's what we are talking about here, isn't it? if the insurance companies are not owned by the government, but are controlled, not just regulated, but controlled by the government, what is that called? And then the liberal government wants to control the financial industry, the energy industry, the auto industry, education......

To: Katelew who wrote (406115)	1/23/2011 12:15:59 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

I think we're using different definitions of socialism and classical liberalism. State ownership of the means of production has been so discredited those who mis-appropriated the term liberal, now "progressive", dasn't shoot for that. Now. Instead, they try to dictate how privately owned assets are utilized. That's fascism, or corporatism if you prefer. Socialism is a good enough shorthand for the left end of the spectrum, sharing commonality in pedigree. Classical liberalism leaves maximum practical autonomy to individuals and their voluntary associations. Experience suggests that arrangement best improves the common good, subject to reasoned constraints. The foundation for improving the lot of everyone, rich and poor alike, is stuffing the pipeline with more and better and newer and cheaper stuff. Socialism doesn't -- can't -- deliver. I'm guessing you're well in the upper percentiles wrt to intelligence and analytic ability. I'd further guess you've had little or no exposure to a vast body of literature examining why mechanisms on the "right" work best. Acquiring a comprehensive overview of conflicting economic visions is an exhaustive effort. Of those with the interest and ability too few have the time. Dammit!!

To: Katelew who wrote (406115)	1/23/2011 1:52:22 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	22 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

I think where I part company with most of the Obama/socialist rhetoric on this thread is simply because of definition. My working definition of socialism involves state ownership of assets. Until I see proposals made for taking over companies, physical assets, private property, etc., I'm disinclined to label someone as a "socialist". That's the end state. The question for socialists is, how to get there. Fabian socialists work through the system to attempt a peaceful conversion towards state control/state ownership of private property. You can make a convincing case that Obama's takeover of banks, auto companies, the whole health care sector, is an exercise in taking control of whatever part of the capitalist system he thought he could take control of. Obama could not just declare martial law and nationalize entire industries. But he has labored mightily to take over what he could take over.

To: Katelew who wrote (406115)	1/23/2011 10:15:38 PM
From: Neeka	11 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794309

A socialist state doesn't happen over night. It is implemented over time, and consists of tiny steps that all lead to the ultimate goal. The take over of GM, banks, and HC were giant leaps toward a common liberal goal......state control over industry. Just as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, section 8 housing, welfare, education etc were socialist goals aimed at control over the populace. I don't doubt that there were altruistic feelings involved here, but the ramifications are wide and deep. I do doubt liberals gave those ramifications much thought because in the greater scheme of things, they weren't important to them. Conservatives are an independent bunch and value liberty above all else. Truth be told, they are appalled at what they've seen happen since Obama was elected. They are determined to take power away from the statists in his administration, reverse the damage this power grab has done, and return that power to the people and the states. Their main motivator is free will, freedom from tyranny and abiding by the Constitution, from which they derive their laws. Democrats deride and mock conservatives for wanting things to remain the same or bring back past policies. They say we have a "living Constitution", and that is a conversation all its own, but conservatives realize that if they sit by idly and say nothing it puts the people and the very nation and her ideas in peril. I can't make it any plainer than that. The left have already remarked upon and touted what they call his "great achievements."