Thanks for speaking for others. Socialists don’t value Freedom? Perhaps they just have a different conception of “Freedom” than you do.
At least in socialism my “slavery” is benefiting everyone rather than a few select bourgeois as in capitalism. We are all slaves to the human condition - death. We need food and shelter to survive, and we need use energy (work) to meet those needs. Whether that means farming your own land, or doing a job for money to buy those necessities, or doing gov’t commissioned work and in return receiving those necessities. None of us is free from death, no matter what system you create.
Between a mortgage, college loans, and credit cards, the average US debt is around $112,000 per household. Most Americans spend their entire lives working off debt. If that’s not slavery, I don’t know what is
Their conception is wrong. You can’t just change the definition of “Freedom” to include being a slave, not having the abiltity to live freely and being forced to bend to one’s will. A is A. Freedom is freedom. Socialists support everything that opposes freedom. Don’t pretend that you really stand to be free.
See? You stand for slavery. And no, it barely benefits anyone. The government takes our money and uses it how they see fit. If people got off their lazy asses and worked for their own money, they would not need the government supporting them as much as it does. Another person’s debt is hardly a concern for me. Just because the government won’t help them pay off debt or provide someone with money to buy necessities (they’re too lazy to make themselves), it doesn’t mean there won’t be programs to help with this.
Death isn’t slavery. It is an inevitability. And debt is not a slavery because we are not forced to get into debt.
To some people, the only freedom is economic freedom. Meaning that I have an absolute right to do what I want with my property. To these people zoning laws, for example, are a direct attack on the individuals right to do what they want with their own land.
Yet these same people, if they owned a home in a nice neighborhood, would be the first to scream bloody murder if their neighbor opened up a pig farm next door. So in this case they demand that “my freedom” to open a pig farm intrudes on Their rights. That government is enslaving people because it does not allow such a farm.
We have laws about usery in the United States, yet one can own a credit card with an interest rate of 10 percent, and suddenly without warning find that the interest rate is now 25 percent or greater. Since all credit card companies have been exempted from usury laws, they would regard this as freedom. Probably regard ALL usery laws as an infringement on their right to do what they want with their money. Of course, why then is the Mafia NOT exempt from usery laws, but respectable banks can charge these kinds of rates?
Since all credit card companies are allowed to act like the Mafia, it does little to tell people to switch cards.
Recently bankruptcy laws were altered so that the working and Middle Class cannot free themselves from debt. Yet these same laws do not have any impact on the wealthy, who CAN declare bankruptcy and free themselves from debt.
All of the above and many more, are inherent aspects of unchecked Capitalism, and for that matter impossible under a Socialist System.
One has to ask if the people of Scandanavia are slaves simply because they live under Socialist Governments, even though much of the economy is in private hands?
Their standard of living is much higher than ours, and yet in every possible criterium they have as many or MORE freedoms than we have.
Of course if one’s only criteium is economic freedom, you bet, you can’t open a pig farm in a residential neighborhood.
I’m not going waste time researching about Scandanavia. It’s as simple as this: If they have to pay taxes (no matter the amount of money), or the government makes and enforces laws regarding ANYTHING other than protection of rights, I would define it as slavery. It’s a less extreme form of slavery, but it is slavery nevertheless. When one is forced to do something, it is a form of slavery. Whether it benefits society or not. Wrong is wrong.
Now about what you think would happen with Capitalism. It is up to people not to be stupid and get in debt or get fucked over by a credit card company. They pay the price for what they do. It shouldn’t be up to the government to fix their mistakes.
How aboout you show proof that tells me they have more freedoms with a socialist government. I’m not going to do your research for you - you made the claim.
You’re describing the United States under President Bush, are you not? Then you are stating that you now live under slavery? All the many benefits that you get from paying taxes mean nothing? Although I would agree, that the benefits are increasingly going to corporations and not people.
Then you feel that present laws which criminalise the Mafia are wrong. That they are simply honest businessmen who are what? Misunderstood? Oppressed by the slave laws that outlaw their open buisness deals?
And why should it be legal that a credit card company can change interest rates at thier whim? Would it be WRONG to ban usery, (and it is illegal for a bank to charge usuery, and used to be illegal for a credit card company) and restore this law? That doing so, would be “slavery?”
Pardon me, YOU made the claim that Socialism is automatically slavery because people have to pay taxes (which we do here)
You said:
Since YOU said it, prove it. Show me how a Scandanavian is a slave because THEY pay taxes but we are free and pay taxes? (Let me add, WTF?)
And did you not say:
So, if someone bears major health costs, this is their fault? Obviously, we could have chosen to die, case closed.
Now in Scandanavia, the entire population is covered by universal health insurance. I realise that you laugh with contempt at this. That whether you pay for it or CHOOSE not to have it, you laugh at the weak Scandanavians (And Canadians, French, British, and for that matter just about every modern industrial country Except us) who actually think that in our modern times, this is a necessity.
And of course, to accept such programs is to be a slave.
Now I am an old fool, and have read that when a slave got sick, he could expect the equivalent of an aspirin, and if that didn’t work, there was always a new slave to buy. May I suggest that your conception of Capitalism is in fact Slavery up to date.
I have not changed the definition of freedom. Freedom has 17 definitions on dictionary.com, one of which is “The absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.” In that sense, a slave is free because he has been released from the burden of leadership. Not everyone wants the responsibility of control. There is a reason that every American does not aspire to be a leader. Some people would rather be lead, they don’t want the burden of responsibility for others. Just because YOU are unhappy being told what to do, that does not mean that there not others that are happy being told what to do (just look how prevalent religion is in the world)
The US unemployment rate is 5%. 95% of the American work force is not on their lazy asses. Many are working longer hours doing more difficult work than you probably are. Yet even with that work, they cannot afford education without loans. They cannot afford a home without loans. Yes, I know you don’t care about anyone but yourself. You take the objectivist stance. Ok. Here’s why you are mistaken. You say another person’s debit is not your concern. Do you have a home? Is your home in foreclosure? Probably not. But many other Americans’ are, and their debt is destroying the ENTIRE US economy. Your stock in Countrywide, or Chase bank is tanking because of THEIR debt. THEY AFFECT YOU. As much as you want to believe that you are in your own little bubble, you are not. When a poor uneducated crack addict robs your home to support his habit, maybe then you will understand the effect that a parasitic underclass of society can have on YOU (it happened to me).
And finally, again to borrow from dictionary.com, a slave is “a person entirely under the domination of some influence”. If death is an inevitability, they we are under the domination of its influence, and hence slaves to death
I agree with you 100%. I would still choose to pay taxes though and ensure I get health care because I’m too scared of dying because I lack money. Same for welfare, could be in the future I am unemployed and my family and I starve without it. Basically being a slave ain’t all that bad, takes worry out of my life, what’s so bad about that?
Anyone who thinks socialism is not slavery should read Anarchy State and Utopia. I too tried to defend socialism as not slavery but i had to give up as it obviously is. Still.
That definition of “freedom” is invalid – although, I would grant it some poetic merit – because “the burden of leadership” is not an obligation in any useful sense of the word when discussing human interaction.
If leadership is necessary for capitalism to function (you are welcome to argue the contrary), then it is an obligation. If the system would fail and collapse without leadership, then it makes the “choice” of leadership rather meaningless.
As a practical reality, your definition of slavery fits pretty much every known civil society on the planet.
I hate to break it to ya, but there’s no escaping the power of others to enslave - even in a Capitalist system. Our personal power to act in either system will always be bounded. For you of course, less so in Capitalism than in Socialism.
Capitalism is better. It doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility of everyone living harmoniously. And socialism doesn’t allow for the accumulation of wealth that’s needed for technological advancements like internet, or cloned corn, or medicine. Just look at what medicine has done for the average lifespan of a human being. Everyone knows that the only way that research gets done is when there’s fierce competition for lots of money. The best of the best get the financial chance to make real differences that are good for everyone because of competition and the accumulation of wealth. Socialism is a fairytale ideal that ignores not only essential components of human nature, but the needs of civilized humanity.
Your example is not really the best since the vast majority of medical breakthroughs have come from research at universities and other unprofitable enterprises with much of the funding coming from government. The profitization of medicine has actually been a great drag on research as much of what used to be publicized in journals is now sequestered in the realm of intellectual property as patents, copyrights, and industrial trade secrets. The motivation for profit is not so great among researchers as you espouse since most of them work on salary or research grants and very few ever see any large monetary benefit from their work.
It seems to me that a socialized approach to medicine seem to work the best as scarce research money can be directed towards more pressing social problems than erectile dysfunction. Did you know that more R&D money has been spent on making penises stand erect than on malaria?
Funny, funny, funny. The greatest advances in modern times, and that includes the personal computer, semi-conductors, advanced insultation, circuit boards, and the list is endless, all came our of government money funding the Space race - And I mean ALL of it.
Mind you, NASA kept NONE of the patents on their work. In fact none of us would be “enslaved” by having to pay taxes if NASA had kept all these patents. Under Capitalism, Capitalist Institutions will simply NOT take risks without an immediate payoff. So they hand these risks to government “Socialists,” who do the work for them, assume the risks, and then GIVE them the patents for free.
I don’t understand why so many people assume that without money for motivation, everyone would do nothing. Do you really think that a physicist is motivated by money? Or a medical researcher motivated by money? Ask them if they would quit their job today if they didn’t need to work for the money, and see what they say. Some people, believe it or not, have motivations other than money. Some people genuinely care about helping others, or discovering new ideas. They won’t disappear with capitalism
And some people care about helping themselves. I want to work, and get lots and lots of money. Take away money, and I have no desire to work.
But this isn’s a problem with Socialism of course. Just steal money from people who …oh wait, there is no money. So I have no reason to work unless I want to discover new ideas, which I don’t. So basically, everyone is a farmer so that they have food.
Thankfully, if I don’t want to be a farmer, socialism provides an answer…just take food away from the farmers to feed those of us who don’t feel like growing our own.
but unfortunately their alternative isn’t the most feasible one
