Communism is NOT the way to go

[Delta1212]

I think even "X ideology is good for some things but needs to be regulated" is looking at it in somewhat the wrong way.

 

Different practices have different outcomes. It's important to determine what those outcomes are, and then apply the right tools to the correct problems depending on what outcomes you want.

 

Some things don't function well in the free market because the principles that drive growth, innovation and efficiency in the market don't apply to those sectors for one reason or another. Healthcare, especially emergency healthcare, for example, often doesn't allow "consumers" much in the way of options as far as shopping around goes, and choosing to forgo accepting a healthcare provider's service may result in death, which makes it difficult to negotiate prices in good faith. If a store jacks up the price of a TV, you can go buy the TV somewhere else, or decide you don't want a TV after all. Meanwhile you can pass out from a medical emergency, have a stranger order you an ambulance that drops you off at a hospital you had no input in choosing and you wake up with tens or potentially even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that your insurance may or may not cover.

 

The other question is whether you believe that people who can pay more for healthcare deserve to get better care than people who don't have the money for treatment. That's a value judgement you need to make as a society and then set the system up so that you get the outcome you want.

 

Sometimes a capitalist solution will work best. Sometimes it doesn't result in the outcome that you want. The problem is when you get people who insist that capitalism or socialism or communism, etc etc are the best systems and that the outcomes they provide are therefore inherently desirable because they are the outcome of that system, or that because that system is the best, it will provide the best outcome in every situation, regardless of whether the outcome under discussion is remotely likely to be the outcome that the system in question ultimately results in.

[Raider5678]

 

What's wrong with Socialism? We have more of that than Communism, currently in the US.

I asked a teacher what Socialism was when I was in 2nd grade. Her explanation was that its a place where everyone is equal in more then just the fact that they are created equal. She said as an example, imagine 5 people applied for a college scholarship. There were 50 scholarships in the first place, but only 49 were left. The 5 kids were on different levels academically, 1 was failing, 1 had D's, 1 had C's, the next had B's, and the final had A's. The college scholarships would have to be evenly distributed. 10 to failing students, 10 to D's, 10 to C's, 10 to B's, 10 to A's. But the final one left would have to go to a failing student. So in a summary, nobody gets an advantage, even if they work harder then the other people. Thats how I learned it, and from what I have seen, that's what I still think it is. Is this wrong?

[Delta1212]

The more key aspect of socialism is that of social ownership. Public property is a socialist concept. So public parks, public libraries, public schools, etc are all socialist institutions.

[iNow]

As are fire departments, police departments, highways, snow plows, and many other outstanding services.

[Raider5678]

The more key aspect of socialism is that of social ownership. Public property is a socialist concept. So public parks, public libraries, public schools, etc are all socialist institutions..

 

As are fire departments, police departments, highways, snow plows, and many other outstanding services.

Bad teacher lol.

 

So ONLY public things? Not your paycheck becoming everyone's to share, or everyone getting paid the same amount?

[Delta1212]

Also the post office. Although it charges for service, because it is under public rather than private control, it's primary mandate is delivering mail rather than making a profit, and as a consequence it will deliver mail essentially anywhere in the United States regardless of whether it is profitable to have the infrastructure set up to do so. This is not the case with private mail delivery services which will sometimes charge much higher rates to deliver to difficult to get to areas or even outsource the delivery to the USPS.

 

Bad teacher lol.

 

So ONLY public things? Not your paycheck becoming everyone's to share, or everyone getting paid the same amount?

There are flavors, degrees and differing styles of socialism, as there are with any given ideology. Some proposed implementations have something similar. On the other hand, income taxes that pay for public services are already in some respect what you are describing.

 

There are also proposals where no one gets a paycheck. You do your job and in exchange, your needs are provided for by society en toto at no cost. Food, housing, entertainment, etc. there are various proposals even for that as to how to organize such a system so that it functions properly, but again, lots of variations on any given ideology.

 

Your teacher's explanation seems to play on a socialist principle that goes along the lines of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" but framed in a rather simplified way obviously meant to portray it in an unflattering light.

 

Which may simply be how it was taught to the teacher as well.

[iNow]

Once again, this serves as a useful reminder not to get our panties in a twist or wrapped around the axle over a boogeymanified term and instead focus on the details and best most efficient path to achieve the desired outcome.

[Raider5678]

Once again, this serves as a useful reminder not to get our panties in a twist or wrapped around the axle over a boogeymanified term and instead focus on the details and best most efficient path to achieve the desired outcome.

We should make a topic and design the perfect government.

[iNow]

Perfect according to whom?

[Raider5678]

Perfect according to whom?

Well, I figured we would all debate on disagreeable issues until we came to an agreeable position on this issue. I.E. gun control, we debate and end up with guns allowed, but require extensive background checks, proper storage placements, tiggerlocks, etc. Which don't discuss this, its just an example.

[iNow]

Try here. May be worth necromancing: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62573-a-modern-constitutional-convention-global-or-local/page-1

[Delta1212]

That's an exceptionally difficult task as it depends heavily on both the circumstances of the country in question and the goals of person designing the government.

 

Geography, economy, neighboring countries, natural resources, technology, size, population, and culture all play into the shape a government needs to take in order to effectively shape society, and what a perfect society even looks like is going depend on who you ask.

 

Given a stated goal and a set circumstances, you can potentially design a government to maximize the chances of that goal succeeding, but even that can be incredibly difficult with circumstances liable to develop over time in unforeseeable ways. With those constraints, it's effectively an impossible task.

Well, I figured we would all debate on disagreeable issues until we came to an agreeable position on this issue. I.E. gun control, we debate and end up with guns allowed, but require extensive background checks, proper storage placements, tiggerlocks, etc. Which don't discuss this, its just an example.

This isn't even addressing an issue of governmental philosophy or structure but rather a single, fairly narrow policy position, and even that doesn't have a truly correct answer because it depends on what you want. Is gun ownership something you want to preserve? How much are you willing to curtail it in the name of restricting gun violence? How much additional gun violence are you willing to accept in order to maintain some level of popular ownership? Are you willing to implement regulations on gun manufacturing?

 

There are trade offs to everything and how much you are willing to accept of one thing over another, or whether you even consider some outcome of a policy to be a positive or negative depends heavily on what you want and believe.

 

The policies that we have are rarely the result of someone working out a perfect policy position, because few people can agree on what one would even look like, and more often the result of competing interests trying to balance each other out with many people rarely getting precisely what they would like.

[Raider5678]

Try here. May be worth necromancing: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62573-a-modern-constitutional-convention-global-or-local/page-1

I looked at it, didn't get a chance to read ALL of it. I think we have a pretty diverse set of people here already don't you think? Either way, necromancing this thread doesn't really seem like a ideal option to me, I kind of want to start a thread solely for the purpose of designing a government, what do you think?

 

P.S. While I don't really agree with all your political opinions, you are quite reasonable IMO. So is phi.

That's an exceptionally difficult task as it depends heavily on both the circumstances of the country in question and the goals of person designing the government.

Geography, economy, neighboring countries, natural resources, technology, size, population, and culture all play into the shape a government needs to take in order to effectively shape society, and what a perfect society even looks like is going depend on who you ask.

Given a stated goal and a set circumstances, you can potentially design a government to maximize the chances of that goal succeeding, but even that can be incredibly difficult with circumstances liable to develop over time in unforeseeable ways. With those constraints, it's effectively an impossible task.

 

This isn't even addressing an issue of governmental philosophy or structure but rather a single, fairly narrow policy position, and even that doesn't have a truly correct answer because it depends on what you want. Is gun ownership something you want to preserve? How much are you willing to curtail it in the name of restricting gun violence? How much additional gun violence are you willing to accept in order to maintain some level of popular ownership? Are you willing to implement regulations on gun manufacturing?

There are trade offs to everything and how much you are willing to accept of one thing over another, or whether you even consider some outcome of a policy to be a positive or negative depends heavily on what you want and believe.

The policies that we have are rarely the result of someone working out a perfect policy position, because few people can agree on what one would even look like, and more often the result of competing interests trying to balance each other out with many people rarely getting precisely what they would like.

We may not be able to get it perfect, but we can do everything we can to think of what may come. Consider cloning. It might be controversial in the future, so we could decided what to do now, though it may be a little odd.... And balancing is something I think possible. There's always going g to be stubborn people unwilling to change, but we should probably accept their input, and if they refuse to do anything but state one thing, we just ignore him for that part.

 

Either way, that's why we would debate on an agreeable position. Besides who's to say we won't debate on government structure and stuff like that?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Raider5678

[iNow]

P.S. While I don't really agree with all your political opinions, you are quite reasonable IMO.

Thx, but try not be distracted by my proper use of the word whom. There's also occasionally merit and evidence supported logic and rationality in my content and core positions, too.

[marieltrokan]

I don't know how valid communism is; the global status quo means repetition (which is anti-perfection), so the question is would socialism on a global scale mean the eventual cease of repetition?