What socialist services does the US government provide?

[jryan]

Your looking at the military in the wrong aspect. It is not a entity in itself where it needs to own to be concidered socialist, rather the military IS the product/industry and WE own it/control it, fund it, and do with it what we will.

 

But it is not a product in an economic sense, it is a service. Not only is it a service, it is a service that derives all of it's effectiveness through capitalist purchases.

 

Plus, the US government doesn't build the tanks and planes and ships either.

 

So again, absent the materials used by the military you are left with the people... who can't be owned.

 

Also, using such a definition of "socialist" there is no need for such a thread because by such an all encompassing definition all government would therefor be socialist.

[Zolar V]

But it is not a product in an economic sense, it is a service. Not only is it a service, it is a service that derives all of it's effectiveness through capitalist purchases.

 

It is a product,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/product

 

"3.the totality of goods or services that a company makes available;"

product includes services, IE a maid cleaning your household.

[Sisyphus]

I figure that the military is organization and training, so the only pure socialist violence possible would be federally produced soldiers committing violence with said federally produced products. Knees elbows, feet and flatulence would also count... assuming the food was grown on communes.

 

The Soviets would count as a socialist army because they were also an industry unto themselves that produced the weapons that they used. But the soviet military was also more of a National Socialist industry with competing industrialists vying for the adoption of their solution to various military needs over competing industrialists (MiG -vs- Ilyushin. etc.).

 

In order for something to be socialist, the workers have to be "federally produced?" Is that really the argument you're making, or have I misunderstood?

 

No, WE the people do not OWN the Military. WE the People ARE the Military. The Military, absent the goods purchased from capitalist industry, is nothing but people... and we abolished the ownership of people long ago.

 

No, we are not the military, unless we are all government, in which case we would be all socialist institutions also. The military has property, and it has employees that it pays, and both of these are funded by the government. I'm not in the military, but I do pay their salary (not that I have a choice in the matter).

 

You're making a big deal out of the fact that the military purchases things from other entities (exclusively, in many cases). I'm wondering what the alternative is, there, and if such a thing is needed to be "socialist," whether, in your opinion, anything socialist has ever existed?

[jryan]

In order for something to be socialist, the workers have to be "federally produced?" Is that really the argument you're making, or have I misunderstood?

 

I was making a joke about what a socialist military would look like that doesn't actually produce any of their own equipment.. so absent the traditional government owned industry I made the comical assumption that you meant soldiers.

 

Ha hah... he he.. ok, not so great.

 

 

 

No, we are not the military, unless we are all government, in which case we would be all socialist institutions also. The military has property, and it has employees that it pays, and both of these are funded by the government. I'm not in the military, but I do pay their salary (not that I have a choice in the matter).

 

We are the employers as we are all the government. But we don't OWN them and we don't PRODUCE their equipment.

 

 

You're making a big deal out of the fact that the military purchases things from other entities (exclusively, in many cases). I'm wondering what the alternative is, there, and if such a thing is needed to be "socialist," whether, in your opinion, anything socialist has ever existed?

 

I have made numerous examples of National Socialist government entities (Ilyushin, MiG, Deutsche Emaillewaren-Fabrik) but there are many more. The rule still applies in socialism: "government own the means of production".

 

By the way, nobody is forced to pay for the Military, it is discretionary money, and therefor comes out of the discretionary budget. As such, 43.4% of Americans do not pay for the Military. So anyone could chose to not pay for the military, they just need to make at or bellow the income level met by that 43.4%. It's not a happy choice if you make a good living... but it is a choice.

[Zolar V]

I'm not in the military, but I do pay their salary (not that I have a choice in the matter).

 

Not sure where your going with the parenthesis, but Thank you anyways.

your few cents a year goes along way in making my paycheck. Though if it was not for the "free"* food and living in the dorms, i would be considered living below the poverty line.

 

 

* I say "free" due to the fact that our food is made by the career field "services" and they buy the food from localities. we get something known as BAS- basic allowance for sustenance, basically the amount of money the government deems you need to eat 3 times a day. they apparently deem around 10 bucks for 3 meals.

 

Its a bit more complicated than that but.. thats about it.

[jryan]

It is a product,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/product

 

"3.the totality of goods or services that a company makes available;"

product includes services, IE a maid cleaning your household.

 

Economic definition of "company": 3 a : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild b : an association of persons for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise c : those members of a partnership firm whose names do not appear in the firm name.

 

These is not applicable to a government unless that government controls the industry.

 

Furthermore, it would be hard to classify the military as a tradtional service as traditionally we pay our customers so that they will allow us to protect them (see Japan, Germany, etc.)... and we wouldn't qualify as customers as we are part of the same organization.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Alternately, product: a thing produced by labor: products of farm and factory; the product of his thought. (From Zolar V's link.)

 

Not a company.

[Sisyphus]

If we are part of the military because the military is part of the government and we are the government, then we'd also be part of "socialized" healthcare, which apparently means it couldn't be socialized.

 

But that's a less bizarre assertion than that the military isn't a service, frankly. Because they are employees, not slaves? What?

[jryan]

If we are part of the military because the military is part of the government and we are the government, then we'd also be part of "socialized" healthcare, which apparently means it couldn't be socialized.

 

But that's a less bizarre assertion than that the military isn't a service, frankly. Because they are employees, not slaves? What?

 

 

My point is that the U.S. Government does not meet the qualifications of a Socialist Government.. or hasn't, traditionally. The fact that the "service" provided has no direct economic purpose leads me to conclude that it is not socialist. Furthermore, the slavery comment was in regard to the thought that the soldiers, which would be the military "means of production", can not be owned by the people... or any people.

 

Now, I see some merit in the thought that a conscript army is socialist, because a conscript compulsory army is, to a greater extent, owned by the people.

[Zolar V]

. Furthermore, the slavery comment was in regard to the thought that the soldiers, which would be the military "means of production", can not be owned by the people... or any people.

[\QUOTE]

 

lol. your average military contract = slavery

or atleast it might as well be.

[Mr Skeptic]

My point is that the U.S. Government does not meet the qualifications of a Socialist Government.. or hasn't, traditionally.

 

Making irrelevant points doesn't really help your case though.

 

The fact that the "service" provided has no direct economic purpose leads me to conclude that it is not socialist. Furthermore, the slavery comment was in regard to the thought that the soldiers, which would be the military "means of production", can not be owned by the people... or any people.

 

Now, I see some merit in the thought that a conscript army is socialist, because a conscript compulsory army is, to a greater extent, owned by the people.

 

So then by the same argument, you are claiming that healthcare paid for by the people but administered voluntarily by doctors isn't socialist? Because the doctors aren't conscripted?

[jryan]

Making irrelevant points doesn't really help your case though.

 

It is a relevant point because the argument currently on the table in favor of "Military is Socialist" is using a definition of socialism and it's terminology that would make all government "socialist". This is obviously not a true assumption (or is to me anyway) which leads to the conclusion that the definition is flawed.

 

That falls under the "that which defines everything defines nothing" category, for me.

 

So, by the "military is socialist" can someone point to a government entity that they would not classify as socialist? I'm not trying to be evasive, but I am simply trying to understand the nuance of the argument at hand.

 

 

So then by the same argument, you are claiming that healthcare paid for by the people but administered voluntarily by doctors isn't socialist? Because the doctors aren't conscripted?

 

I never said it was. That is more appropriately defined as Statism.

[Sisyphus]

Can you not own a business with paid employees that work for you voluntarily? Even if that business doesn't manufacture its own office supplies? And what do you mean by "direct economic purpose?" Why does the military exist, in your opinion?

 

On one point, at least, we agree: talking about whether something is "socialist" is almost meaningless.

[Mr Skeptic]

It is a relevant point because the argument currently on the table in favor of "Military is Socialist" is using a definition of socialism and it's terminology that would make all government "socialist". This is obviously not a true assumption (or is to me anyway) which leads to the conclusion that the definition is flawed.

 

Indeed, that's what we've been saying of your definitions. Anyhow, please explain to me how totalitarian dictatorship (which is a form of government) is socialist, which you are in the quote above claiming it is.

 

That falls under the "that which defines everything defines nothing" category, for me.

 

So, by the "military is socialist" can someone point to a government entity that they would not classify as socialist? I'm not trying to be evasive, but I am simply trying to understand the nuance of the argument at hand.

 

Certainly. A totalitarian dictatorship, the police in a police state, toll roads (assuming the toll pays for the road), and basically anything not "owned" by the people.

 

In a democracy almost every service the government provides would be socialist, but we don't call the it a socialist country unless the country uses over half the resources in a socialist manner.

[Pangloss]

If I wish being agreed with, there are plenty of forums to visit, blogs or political gatherings, where my comments would be and have been accepted nearly 100%.

 

I couldn't agree more, and I wouldn't be surprised if most folks here agree with you on this point as well.

 

 

The Constitution, however is black and white, as are the laws of this land or any other. If you want change, do it correctly and hold to the procedures available.

 

Of course. And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?)

 

 

Actually, I would say most Americans make decisions based on their own interest, not the Nation.

 

Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on.

 

One of the unspoken but ever-present foundations of Rush Limbaugh's program is this sort of seething anger at the behavior of the American people. Things just aren't "the way they ought to be", because the little peons just won't do what they're told! It's quite amusing, really.

[CharonY]

you can still have a communist society with capitalism and you obvioulsy have a democratic society engaging in capitalism as well.

 

Technically, you can't. You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. However, in capitalism the means of production are in the hand of individuals, whereas in a communistic society they would be shared by everyone. As the powers were also supposed to shared by everyone (though I do not know how that was supposed to work out) there wouldn't be any ruling class or group. In a sense communism was also supposed to be a democratic society.

Again, I am only talking about the theory as originated by Marx and Engels not how it eventually played out. China, in that sense, is not communistic, but authoritarian (despite being widely capitalistic) as others have pointed out.

[Zolar V]

Technically, you can't. You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. However, in capitalism the means of production are in the hand of individuals, whereas in a communistic society they would be shared by everyone. As the powers were also supposed to shared by everyone (though I do not know how that was supposed to work out) there wouldn't be any ruling class or group. In a sense communism was also supposed to be a democratic society.

Again, I am only talking about the theory as originated by Marx and Engels not how it eventually played out. China, in that sense, is not communistic, but authoritarian (despite being widely capitalistic) as others have pointed out.

 

There is a way around your problem, of communists cannot engage in capitalism.

You can have a society of communists engaging in capitalism by, having the society agree to trade/buy goods from another country in order to benefit itself.

 

^^ sounds kinda like a democracy, but in reality democratic and communistic (Marx and Engels) is basically the same.

 

WTB Utopia.

[jackson33]

Pangloss quote;

Of course. And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?) [/Quote]

 

 

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.....

 

 

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).[/Quote]

 

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Pangloss, is laymen's terms, this means Congress has used it's power to subvert the State right to regulate or even make law according to their wishes. Seat belt laws and most everything involving Education has been implemented by the Federal, are also example.

 

Also in that reference site, is current State Legal Activity, of NOW 25 States to try and void some Health Care requirements placed on their State, which will be squashed by the Federal, by some action to refuse funding for other than Health Care. Along the same line, mentioned before, NO Hospital/Clinic or Medical Facility in a State can be forced to treat non paying customers. Aside from this not being a natural tendency of the profession (Hippocratic oath) or the general societies themselves (to provide), the Federal will NOT pay it's share for any Medicaid or Medicare patients that institution accepts.

 

National Health Care Nullification - As of March 2010, 25 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona and Virginia. [11] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. [12] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.[/Quote]

 

A good share of this style intrusion into State OBLIGATION, occurred during the building of the US Interstate System in the 1950's, once it was dropped as a security issue and for use by the military only, before construction began. Even today, to receive back the billions collected by the Federal Gas Taxes, they are compelled to comply to certain building and maintenance codes, that cannot be controlled with the regular US Highway System. The following is a short PDF, but one I can't cut and paste, but goes through many of the arguments made 50-60 years ago...

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3692676/Chapter-3gov

 

95% of the proposed programs (literally hundreds in the HC Bill), be it Health Care, Welfare, Cap and Trade or any other distribution of wealth are IMO, unconstitutional including the ACT's (opposed to constitutional amendments) they were built on, based on the requirement 3/4th's of States must agree on anything deemed major or be done through the amendment process. There are far more informed people out there arguing these things daily in the Courts, than myself and I won't go back over all I've offered, on several threads over the years.

 

Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on. [/Quote]

 

Not when voting. If a candidate makes certain promises the average person hears only what they want to hear, that being what concerns them self the most. For all practical purposes everyone in the US votes for only five people, P/VP, their district House member and their two State Representative to the Senate. Remember the original intent was for this to be limited to -1-, their local House member.

 

You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. [/Quote]

 

Chyron; This stems back to a comment of mine, that I didn't follow up on or defend. In short, the average person accepts these as opposites, in the US, at least in my opinion, while trying to show the various mix. If I had said the opposite of Democracy could be a 'Muslim Totalitarian Monarchy' was the opposite of the American Republic Representative System, though more accurate, few would have understood it.

 

Zolar; A Communist State is briefly a single party rule, that follows the Communism Ideology, which by definition, can't be free market Capitalism.

 

Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[CharonY]

You can have a society of communists engaging in capitalism by, having the society agree to trade/buy goods from another country in order to benefit itself.

Hmm an interesting thought. Though one could argue that at this point the communistic country would still not considered capitalist as the goods would dissipate within its own country instead of accumulating in limited hands. If I recall my highschool history lesson correctly the ownership of the capital rather than the trading itself was an issue. But then I am really not knowledgeable enough in the fine points.

[Zolar V]

Hmm an interesting thought. Though one could argue that at this point the communistic country would still not considered capitalist as the goods would dissipate within its own country instead of accumulating in limited hands. If I recall my highschool history lesson correctly the ownership of the capital rather than the trading itself was an issue. But then I am really not knowledgeable enough in the fine points.

 

i see your point, and i counter with this.

instead of looking at the society as a group of individuals. look at it as if it was a single entity. The idea of a society being communist (or insert government here) is that the people(or the people in charge) define themselves as such for themselves. the key being here is that the people can define them selves as communist and practice communism and therefore be a communist society.

however once you allow the society to be viewed as a single entity, the question of whether or not the dissipation of a purchased product is considered capitalist is easily answered. that answer being yes of course. because the goods where bought from country A into country B.

 

^^ this makes sense to me, but it may not make sense to you. i could actually take the time to explain it if you want.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, is laymen's terms, this means Congress has used it's power to subvert the State right to regulate or even make law according to their wishes. Seat belt laws and most everything involving Education has been implemented by the Federal, are also example.

 

And it did this correctly -- in a manner not only allowed but explicitly encouraged by the Constitution. Strict constructionism is not a logical basis for objections to safety regulations.

 

Furthermore, in my opinion what fuels these kinds of constitutionality arguments is a frustration with the inability to convince large groups to agree with one's moral/ethical viewpoints. Instead of being prey to people's ignorance, they leverage it. Rush Limbaugh uses "reason" like this all the time, and in my opinion it's something that normal people like you and I should run away from, not pass along.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Pangloss
that's "prey" not "pray" (lol)

[Moontanman]

It seems to me this argument is bogus, providing social services does not make a government socialist, all governments provide socialist type services to their people. Socialist does not equal communist and a democracy is not threatened by offering social services to it's people.

[Zolar V]

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

 

It's up to States, what are considered safety laws (thousands of other issues) and can very to extremes. NY for instance has 25 or so seat belt laws, where in New Hampshire there are no laws covering anyone over the age of 18. Fines are just as extreme. Speed laws today, vehicle condititon (Safety Stickers) and all fines or class for infractions (misdemeanor/felony) can be extreme. Driving 80MPH in Texas, on certain roads is legal, as in Montana. On and on, and I won't bore you with how different Family/Estate Laws varies. Point we are 50 separate, sovereign and independent States with certain guaranteed rights, that are being ignored.

 

I'll also disagree that people with different viewpoints should remain silent, to avoid Constitutionality discussion, maybe the opposite. I know this is hard to believe, but probably half the people over 18 in this Country today, honestly believe it's the Federal responsibility to provide from 10 to all things classified essential and if fact none are. I should be long gone, but if projected deficits are in fact 22T$, with additional obligation of anywhere from 40-80T$, by 2020, there won't be ANY services available. Reorganization, no less than any business must go through in bankruptcy, will be devastating on the society. Don't believe for one second this could not happen. Since this is your second mention of Limbaugh, I'm afraid he thinks these proposed programs can be turned around or that the underlying problems do NOT exist and IMO, both wrong....

 

Thanks for your comments and the platform to spin from...but we're probably getting off the message the thread author intended.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It seems to me this argument is bogus, providing social services does not make a government socialist, all governments provide socialist type services to their people. Socialist does not equal communist and a democracy is not threatened by offering social services to it's people. [/Quote]

 

Moon; If the means to provide those services, is taken from those that already have the service, to allow being provided for less or no cost, that's the meaning of a Socialist society.

 

 

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing. [/Quote]

 

There were very few programs mention in the OP, that were Federal in the first place and where my discussions come from. Except for one (Security) those IMO were improperly imposed on the States and that one (Security) was agreed to by the founders.

[Mr Skeptic]

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

 

Indeed, someone was opposing the proposed healthcare bill as it is a socialist program, and I thought it would amuse them to see how many other socialist services our government already provides -- some of which I'm sure he approves of. Regardless of all these socialist programs, I wouldn't consider the US to be socialist unless over half our money went to socialist programs. As it is, we are a mixed economy leaning toward capitalism, and that's just fine with me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?)

 

I think jackson33's examples of federal expansions of power seem to be a legal loophole that allows the federal to blackmail the states, by taking their money and only offering it back if they do as told. That's definitely coercion, though not force. Of course the states can refuse if they don't mind saying goodbye to their own money.

 

Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on.

 

Ah, but it seems to me that for the most part they choose a single issue or two, or at least some people seem to do that.