Socialism

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I will leave Levi to bat the rest of the questions but i simply cannot leave this unchallenged. What you have just said is simply 100% false.

Do you mean in the constitutional referendum ? I assume so. The reforms put forward in the referendum contrary to conventional wisdom did not look to make Chavez "leader for life". That particular ammendment looked to remove term limits. This doesn't mean that he would remain leader forever. It only meant he could stand for election as many times as he wished. That it would no longer be like the US where you can only stand twice. He wanted to make it more democratic, like the rest of the world, like France, like Britain, like Australia. In all these countries a President or Prime Minister can continually run for election, leaving it for the people to decide.

I think it's incredibly naive to think the ultimate goal of his constitutional amendments wasn't to consolidate his power and prevent people from challenging his rule in the future. It all starts with being able to remain in office indefinitely, because while there you can crack down on opposition.

Chavez has censored the media, interfered with an independent judiciary, and a whole host of other things that are widely documented.. He doesn't want the people to have all of the information they need to make an informed decision.

Just because you have elections doesn't mean that the people really have a choice, look at Russia, look at Iraq under Saddam, look at Cuba. They're not true elections where the people have a choice, because you have intimidation, state run news, and crackdowns on people they label "dissidents"..

This is from three years ago:

Ten days ago Chavez handed Izarra a still-bigger stick: a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects -- not only in public but also in private.

Start with Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar27.html

Democratic rule requires a free press to keep the power of the state in check. That move isn't democratic, it's authoritarian in nature. And if you think it's gotten better since 2005, you'd be sadly mistaken..

And it even suggests that people can't say what they want in private, which is even more authoritarian and controlling.

France, the UK and Australia are very different countries than someplace like Venezuela, so the comparison to term limits isn't a valid comparison.

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

That simply is more democratic. It is quite undemocratic to forbid the people from electing who they wish. As much as i dislike George Bush, if the American people actually widhed to elect him a third time they should be allowed to. That is democracy.

While I agree to a certain extent, "career" politicians learn to work the system, but ultimately are more interested in their job security than doing what's in the best interest of their constituents, especially for people who are up for re-election every 2 years.

Every decision is a political calculation designed to allow them to keep their seat, rather than doing the right thing. All you have to do is look at the capitulation of so many Democrats on this unconstitutional warrantless wiretap bullshit they're trying to ram through Congress right now for proof of that.

If they know that they're there to serve the people for a limited time, instead of turning it into a career they want to hang on to, they're more apt to do the right thing and throw job security caution to the wind.. and in the end, the people win.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I believe a bit of perspective is required here. In what way is the poor American better off than the average Cuban, Venezuelan or Soviet in their day ? Sure they have more money in their pocket and they can own more things. However, they are rarely as well educated, they rarely have the same access to health care, they dont have a cradle to the grave protection in case something goes wrong.

Are you seriously going to try to say that those suffering under the oppression of the Soviet Union, lets say, under Stalin were better off than the average poor person in the US?

Please provide some sort of quality of life statistics for the average person in the Soviet Union to back up your assertion

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I would also say that Cuba is a notoriously difficult country to emigrate to. They are still at war. The cold war hasnt ended for them and they have to be very cautious when dealing with immigration.

And i believe you have failed to understand the power of the propgandists. The US and capitalist world are cleerly wining the propaganda war. They wont let people know about good stories from Cuba, the successes are rarely known and a whole heap of misinformation is put out there.

It is personally my dream to emmigrate to Cuba. I hope that within the next 5-10 years i will have acquired the skills and trust to be able to do so.

Well, props to you for putting your money where your mouth is.

I'd be interested in seeing what you think of Cuba after you live there for a few years.

That might not be possible, though. The ban on owning a computer was only lifted in May of this year (finally), maybe in 5 or 10 years the government will decide to allow you, as an ordinary citizen, to have access to the internet at home legally.

Right now it's currently limited to people the government trusts and state-employed journalists.

Although, I'd expect it to be heavily censored and I'm not sure you'd be able to talk freely about the Cuban government without risking retaliation..

Kind of interesting that you're willing to give up basic freedoms like posting on the internet to live in a society where the government will tell you how to live your life and wont trust you to make decisions for yourself..

You know, unless you play the politics game and become an important party official, and then you're allowed access to technology, freedoms and other things the ordinary citizen simply "can't be trusted with," like cell phones and microwaves and pressure cookers.

Dangerous items, those microwaves. Can't have common folk being able to heat up meals quickly.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The problem I have with socialism is that it just doesn't seem to work out any better than we have here with free markets.

Free markets?!!! Where?????

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by leviathon

I don't know the history of the pilgrims so I can't really comment, but whether or not I did some anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal my ass. Our First Thanksgiving| The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

based on possibly flawed,

Flawed in what way?

and definitely biased,

Biased how?

Socialism provides equal liberty too,

Really? What property rights do people have under socialism?

aswell as equal opportunities

At poverty, yes.

and equal access to the necessities,

Why would I just want stale bread and water?

it does not provide equal wealth.

I should say equal poverty.

Do you not think that in fact knowing you pwn in part the factory where you work, or the school where you teach would encourage a better work effort.

And in what way can I do anything with the part that I supposedly "own"? Can I fire a "bad" employee? Can I force the company to make changes that I think are beneficial? Can I give myself a raise? Can I keep someone from getting hired that I do not like?

Socialism actually allows everypne to quite literally work for themselves, whereas capitalism only creates an illusion of this.

Socialism results in no one working, because no one has any incentive to work. Socialism means the STATE owns everything, not the individual. Individuals have absolutely no say in what happens, the STATE does.

Quite apart from this debate what makes equal liberty moral but not equal wealth?

Because, in order to obtain equal wealth, you have to take from one and give to another, against the will of the first.

In order to obtain equal liberty, everyone has to agree to a transaction.

I didn't realise you had solved all meta-ethical problems. Congratulations.

I did not. It has taken many great minds to understand economics, whom I have learned from.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

In what way is the poor American better off than the average Cuban, Venezuelan or Soviet in their day ?

For starters, no "poor american" was ever jailed or killed for speaking out against his government. "Poor" cubans, venezuelans, and russians don't have the luxury of that kind of speech.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by leviathon

Because the governmnet (=the people) is only concerned with what is best for the people, not with profit as the market is.

The private market though is really great in the sense that it drives competition which keeps prices on rival good and services low and quality high. Furthermore the private market fuels innovation through competition (it is needed in order for businesses to stay afloat, a sort of change and grow or die type situation).

Take the competition out of it and innovation, and therefor growth slows, there is also the problem concerning quality.

This is whymany economists are seeking to add an element of private market competition into the education market in the United States. We want to get more bang for our buck.

Business desires profit, this is it. The government's only purpose is to provide for the people the best it can, as that is its job, just as a teacher's is to teach and a doctor's is to heal.

So why not just regulate against the negative externalities that businesses produce and leave the rest up to the market? That way you still get the competition and all of the benefits that go along with it but with less of the negatives that would exist in a purely private market.

Also, it is perfectly possible for a leader to be cvoted out, should the part wish it.

But this doesn't always work, in fact the exact opposite is quite common. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or Iran.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by leviathon

No, it supports an equal and flourishing society where all can live in peace and work together for the society.

How would you limit the effects of moral hazards in a socialist economy?

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you seriously going to try to say that those suffering under the oppression of the Soviet Union, lets say, under Stalin were better off than the average poor person in the US?

Please provide some sort of quality of life statistics for the average person in the Soviet Union to back up your assertion

Well how do you evaluate quality of life ? It is going to depend on your measurements. I do not accept measurements like how much you earn or how much you own. I accept measurements like access to healthcare and equality of education. These would be most fundamental of measueres.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by 7960

For starters, no "poor american" was ever jailed or killed for speaking out against his government. "Poor" cubans, venezuelans, and russians don't have the luxury of that kind of speech.

Venezuelans aren't jailed or killed for opposing government. A quick glance at Venezuelan TV or newspapers would confirm this.

In Cuba there many debates about government policy, students were even seen on TV here in the UK openly criticising policy and suggesting how it ought to be changed. What people are jailed for is being CIA agents and links to terrorism.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, props to you for putting your money where your mouth is.

I'd be interested in seeing what you think of Cuba after you live there for a few years.

That might not be possible, though. The ban on owning a computer was only lifted in May of this year (finally), maybe in 5 or 10 years the government will decide to allow you, as an ordinary citizen, to have access to the internet at home legally.

Right now it's currently limited to people the government trusts and state-employed journalists.

Although, I'd expect it to be heavily censored and I'm not sure you'd be able to talk freely about the Cuban government without risking retaliation..

Kind of interesting that you're willing to give up basic freedoms like posting on the internet to live in a society where the government will tell you how to live your life and wont trust you to make decisions for yourself..

You know, unless you play the politics game and become an important party official, and then you're allowed access to technology, freedoms and other things the ordinary citizen simply "can't be trusted with," like cell phones and microwaves and pressure cookers.

Dangerous items, those microwaves. Can't have common folk being able to heat up meals quickly.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Firstly i am 23. I only start university in September, so i will have 4 years of that. I will of course have to learn the language. Then i will have to find if i have a skill desired by the revolution.

On the other issues you raise i believe you have given the wrong cause of the effect. Though i think you probably already know ths.

Of course things like microwaves are not too dangerous.

What you have to remember is Cuba is a planned economy. They have very limited capital of which to manage. This means making tough decisions, decisions we in the west really take for granted. They must decide whether to pay doctors, buy medicine, hire teachers, build schools, create scocial housing or limit that and buy in more what are in essence luxury items.

Now we may say how horrible, they can't have a microwave. However, wouldn't it be more horrible if we had to say, they don't have access to a doctor ? They aren't being educated, many live homeless or don't have a job ?

With that perspective surely we must say they are doing the right thing.

The same can be said for computers, while computers are again something we take for granted, given the choice of having a doctor or a computer, having a home or internet connection, the choice becomes a no brainer.

Other countries with a similar GDP to Cuba may have the freedom to own a computer, but in reality can anyone really afford it ? More importantly do they have all the social provisions the Cuba people do ? I think the answers are obvious.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's incredibly naive to think the ultimate goal of his constitutional amendments wasn't to consolidate his power and prevent people from challenging his rule in the future. It all starts with being able to remain in office indefinitely, because while there you can crack down on opposition.

And Sarkozy can remain in office indefinately, so can Gordon Brown, where is the outrage ? That is democracy, if the people wish them to remain in office, they remain in office.

Originally Posted by motivez

Chavez has censored the media, interfered with an independent judiciary, and a whole host of other things that are widely documented.. He doesn't want the people to have all of the information they need to make an informed decision.

Just because you have elections doesn't mean that the people really have a choice, look at Russia, look at Iraq under Saddam, look at Cuba. They're not true elections where the people have a choice, because you have intimidation, state run news, and crackdowns on people they label "dissidents"..

Every Venezuelan election has been verified as fair and free. Whether by US bodies or EU no international organisation has ever said anything to contradict this. The only claim of foul play comes from the losers. This is no surprise.

Originally Posted by motivez

This is from three years ago:



Chavez's Censorship (washingtonpost.com)

I would like to see a full version of the law rather than one with quotes interspersed with commentary. I would also say that if the suggestions were true we would not see such vocal anti Chavismo from the media, which still exists.

Originally Posted by motivez

Democratic rule requires a free press to keep the power of the state in check. That move isn't democratic, it's authoritarian in nature. And if you think it's gotten better since 2005, you'd be sadly mistaken..

And it even suggests that people can't say what they want in private, which is even more authoritarian and controlling.

A free press indeed. However, an unlawful press no. You have to remember April 2002. The media lead by RCTV executed a coup against the Venezuelan government. They with some rebel army officers orchestrated the overthrow of democracy. They have been proven to have lied on this day. They manipulated footage to show Chavez supporters fire on peaceful marchers. Of course this didn't happen. The Chavez supporters where actually the ones under fire from the coup plotters which was revealed by the camera angle that were not shown.
The TV stations implicated Chavez in this saying it had happened on his orders.

When the coup was executed the generals went on TV laughing and boasting that the media were to thank. Without them the coup could never have been executed.

I strongly urge you to watch this film of the coup. It is made by an Irish production firm who were in the palace as the coup took place. They were there to make a documentary about the Chavez government and ended up caught up in this whole affair. It will show you the full extent of media manipualtion and lies prevelant in Venezuela. If Chavez takes actions to stop this kind of thing happening again. I for one applaud him. You must remember that if this happened in the US they would be executed, in the UK they would spend their lifes in prison. By all accounts the Venezuelans have been leniant.

the revolution will not be televised documentary - Google Video#

Originally Posted by motivez

France, the UK and Australia are very different countries than someplace like Venezuela, so the comparison to term limits isn't a valid comparison.

I simply do not accept that Venezuelans are any less deserving of full democracy than Brits, French or Australians. Infact most countries in the world don't have term limits. The US is in the minority along with most of Latin America. We could easily say that Latin America only has this due to the history of US domination on the region. Having term limits certainly hasn't helped them so far.

Originally Posted by motivez

While I agree to a certain extent, "career" politicians learn to work the system, but ultimately are more interested in their job security than doing what's in the best interest of their constituents, especially for people who are up for re-election every 2 years.

Every decision is a political calculation designed to allow them to keep their seat, rather than doing the right thing. All you have to do is look at the capitulation of so many Democrats on this unconstitutional warrantless wiretap bullshit they're trying to ram through Congress right now for proof of that.

If they know that they're there to serve the people for a limited time, instead of turning it into a career they want to hang on to, they're more apt to do the right thing and throw job security caution to the wind.. and in the end, the people win.

At first glance i find that argument convincing. However, look at George Bush 2nd term. Do you really believe he has been doing what is in your best interest because he isn't up for another election? It seems instead that he is throwing caution to the wind simply because he is not up for re-election. If he was up for re-election he arguably would be pulling out of Iraq, closing GITMO, talking to people in Iran rather than threatening them, Right now he can get away with not doing this because he has no one to answer to.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Well how do you evaluate quality of life ? It is going to depend on your measurements. I do not accept measurements like how much you earn or how much you own. I accept measurements like access to healthcare and equality of education. These would be most fundamental of measueres.

Through the current American system there is an easy way to get choice of heatlh-care and equality of education. It's called vouchers. You allow the people to choose what they want or they can opt out and provide it for themselves. You can't just tell people how they can teach their education. 200,000 families who home-school their children may now not be able to is a slap in the face to the Constitution.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Through the current American system there is an easy way to get choice of heatlh-care and equality of education. It's called vouchers. You allow the people to choose what they want or they can opt out and provide it for themselves. You can't just tell people how they can teach their education. 200,000 families who home-school their children may now not be able to is a slap in the face to the Constitution.

You see i hate to be offensive and i know to many people this is. I just don't care about the US constitution. It is of no importance to me and i find it to be all to often used as a means of blocking philosophical discussion.

The only way i believe actually gives equality of education is this, every school is a public school totally funded by the state. Every school teaches the same curriculum. Every student has the same access to resources. Resources should be spread fairly on a per capita basis.

I support equal access to healthcare. Not a multi tier class system. You can't pay to be seen quicker. You can't pay to choose where treated. Infact you cant pay for anything exact what goes through the tax system.

That is equal access.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

You see i hate to be offensive and i know to many people this is. I just don't care about the US constitution. It is of no importance to me and i find it to be all to often used as a means of blocking philosophical discussion.

The only way i believe actually gives equality of education is this, every school is a public school totally funded by the state. Every school teaches the same curriculum. Every student has the same access to resources. Resources should be spread fairly on a per capita basis.

I support equal access to healthcare. Not a multi tier class system. You can't pay to be seen quicker. You can't pay to choose where treated. Infact you cant pay for anything exact what goes through the tax system.

That is equal access.

You don't care about our constitution and I can see why. It is what protects individuals, minorities and dissidents from the government or the majority. A democracy ain't worth a dam without a good one. The people can be just as oppressive as a dictator. The people are not always a bunch of pussy cats. I believe in democracy because it is the best system by far. But the people can be manipulated but the constitution helps protect against that.

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

You don't care about our constitution and I can see why. It is what protects individuals, minorities and dissidents from the government or the majority. A democracy ain't worth a dam without a good one. The people can be just as oppressive as a dictator. The people are not always a bunch of pussy cats. I believe in democracy because it is the best system by far. But the people can be manipulated but the constitution helps protect against that.

It may well protect people. However, i am not a US citizen. I am a British citizen. I am not bound by the US constitution. So i do not accept it as legitimate argument.

Too often when i simply wan't to engage in debate people have said, that is unconstitutional and that is the end of that debate. I see that as a major philosophical deficciency. Even if you are a US citizen it should not be used to stifle debate. Surely discussion should still be had on issues. Even if a proposal is unconstitutional it is still worth considering it's merits or lack of.

There is always the possibility that the constitution could bewrong on an issue. The founding fathers were not infallible. They were just men like the rest of us.