Democratic Socialism debate.

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,143
Well then, democratic socialism is strong on personal bodily freedom, not so great on freedom from taxation.
No it isn't. How is the government taking 60% of everything you produce being strong on personal bodily freedom?


Look i think the point you're getting at with the thread is something like this and correct me if I'm wrong:
"Democratic socialism isn't truly democratic because it doesn't protect individual freedoms in the form of social welfare programs that the public have no choice but to pay in for". But by that standard no government is truly democratic.
Wrong, Democratic Socialism isn't democratic because socialism deliberately violates individual rights in favour of group rights.


I think what most people mean by democracy is a representative government by public voting. And from that side at least, you have to admit that Bernie Sanders is a voting rights absolutist. Nobody should be afraid that he will turn America into Bolivia because he's always consistently opposed autocratic rulers, and championed expanded voting rights.
B.S
If he were a voting rights absolutist he would be insisting on voter ID. The same as almost other country in the Fkking world.

You know since he wants to make the US like Sweden and Norway:

Sweden
When physically voting on election day, every voter must provide a valid identification document (such as a passport, drivers license, or an ID card from the Swedish Tax Agency). If a voter is missing valid identification, another person with valid ID-documents can certify the identity of the documentless voter
Norway
Voting in Norway is voluntary for citizens 18 years or older (16 in some municipalities). Every person who is eligible to vote are sent a polling card in the mail a while before the election. The polling card recommends the closest voting location to you, but you are not required to vote there, but you are required to vote within your municipality. The polling card contains the date(s) of the election, opening times of polling locations and information on how to vote. While it is not mandatory to bring the polling card on the day(s) of the election, it generally makes the process smoother. However, a photographic ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, is required to vote. During the election day after you pick your party, you present your photographic ID and optionally your poll card to the poll attendants who verifies the information against a database, and record that you have voted.
Canukistan
In Canada, the Federal government mails an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station. The card tells the individual where and when to vote. Voters must prove their identity and address with one of three options
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws
 

yebocan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
10,745
Let's take a closer look at socialism in the US right now, shall we:

The US military is the largest, best funded socialist program in the world... On the taxpayer dime.

The police protect and serve... On the taxpayer dime.

Fire departments around the US will put out a fire in you home or rescue your cat from a tree... On the taxpayer dime.

If you send a Christmas card to your nana via the post office, you do it... On the taxpayer dime.

If you go to your nana for Christmas dinner, you get there on a road or highway built... On the taxpayer dime.

Man, I could do this all day...

Social security, Healthcare, the VA, public schools, the CDC, FEMA, the FDA, CBP, HHS, the IRS, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, Congress, monuments, museums, parks, zoos, beaches, dams, sewers, the weather service, NPR, PBS, rail, the court system, public defenders, the prison system, the DOJ...

Also...

Donnie's bailout for farmers

... his golf trips

... and the house he lives in.
Some of very same people, that flocked/made up Obama's winning coalition...after the mess of the GW Bush Administration...flocked/flipped to Trump,...as they did not see , in real terms their lives improving...although the economy is flourishing the very same people are not seeing the prosperity, that Trump is so proud to hold up. People are frustrated/angry - Midwest farmers are barely surviving, on the federal handouts /bailouts - thanks to the trade war with China ...as Micheal Moore puts it, working class/blue collars in the Battleground States - these states will decide the election, thanks to their Electoral College system .... are about ready to try anything/anyone ... people are desperate...making the scene ripe for a Bernie... What is clear from the Democratic Primaries, Bernie message...resonates across race, age group, education level ...a wholesome coalition and one that is very hard to beat...the Democratic Party establishment are kakking themselves.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,143
Interesting I've never heard a viewpoint exactly like this before.

How would you handle coercion between citizens and companies? Classic example is pollution. Factory owner has the freedom to do business. The community has the freedom to live where they want.

But if the factory pollutes the environment which impacts the freedoms of the community it is a form of coercion in that it forces them to not be able to live where they want. On the other hand if we coerce the factory owner to not pollute to the benefit of the community then we limit their freedoms. (sorry for the poor wording but you surely understand what I'm getting at)

How could coercion be avoided in that case? How should this dilemma be resolved?
There is a completely valid case for government to regulate air pollution as the effects of pollution are felt by people who didn't consent to it.

This isn't like regulating who a bank can lend money to for example, which is an entirely voluntary transaction on the part of both a bank and a client.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Interesting I've never heard a viewpoint exactly like this before.

How would you handle coercion between citizens and companies? Classic example is pollution. Factory owner has the freedom to do business. The community has the freedom to live where they want.

But if the factory pollutes the environment which impacts the freedoms of the community it is a form of coercion in that it forces them to not be able to live where they want. On the other hand if we coerce the factory owner to not pollute to the benefit of the community then we limit their freedoms. (sorry for the poor wording but you surely understand what I'm getting at)

How could coercion be avoided in that case? How should this dilemma be resolved?
I think in your specific scenario the factory is affecting properties outside of its bounds and is the aggressor.

But I know what you're getting at. There might be many realistic scenarios that would be a nightmare to resolve. And you're discussing freedoms among relatively sane people. How do you resolve the freedoms of someone who's legit out of their minds?

I think morality (zero coercion) should be the target, never fully realized but always to strive for. Negotiation is always on the table. That's a more pragmatic way to look at it perhaps.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,143
The US military is the largest, best funded socialist program in the world... On the taxpayer dime.
Stop right there.

US spending.png

Social security is much bigger than all military spending in the US.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,334
No it isn't. How is the government taking 60% of everything you produce being strong on personal bodily freedom?
Lolwut? Your body is not your money.

Wrong, Democratic Socialism isn't democratic because socialism deliberately violates individual rights in favour of group rights.
What a konfabulous conflation of libertarianism and democracy.

B.S
If he were a voting rights absolutist he would be insisting on voter ID.
Oh you mean the kind of voting rights that means there's fewer of those minority folks voting? Gotcha.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,334
Huh? He is separating and distinguishing the terms
He isn't distinguishing democracy from libertarianism because he's incapable of doing that, because he sees them as the same thing
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,143
Lolwut? Your body is not your money.
It is what you measure the work that your body does in.


What a konfabulous conflation of libertarianism and democracy.
I asked you to define what the Democratic part of Democratic socialism said. You agreed that it meant the protection of individual rights.

You don't have individual rights under socialism. Period.


Oh you mean the kind of voting rights that means there's fewer of those minority folks voting? Gotcha.
Voting rights like in every other country in the world. Why doesn't the US follow Sweden's lead in this since Sweden is the utopia?

Or are you suggesting that Sweden is a utopia because their voter ID laws make it such that all the non-white people can't vote? :unsure:
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,502
You don't have individual rights under socialism. Period.
Strawman there. You are making your argument against the your definition of socialism, not their definition of socialism.

To have a good discussion we all need to read deeper than the surface level labels people use. Lets try listen to what people mean rather than the words they use.

Perhaps we should call it "Democratic Bernism" instead of socialism to unload the concept from biased judgement and make it easier to debate on the merits.
 

Cius

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,068
Social democracies are arguably the happiest countries in the world right now. Places like Denmark, NZ, Sweden, etc. They tend to have decent equality and less social issues, better opportunities and high work life balance. The USA will take a while to get there but will head in that direction I suspect. The reason it will take the USA longer is because the US government spent decades villainizing communism as part of the cold war and the average (white in particular) US citizen equates heading any closer to communism as treason as that is what they were taught and believed. Democratic socialism is a different thing to communism in that it is not a centrally planned dictatorship, its still democratic but government is bigger, tax is bigger, and society is potentially a bit fairer in terms of access to healthcare, education, etc.

A few things would have to happen before the USA goes that way.
Firstly they will need to lose the no 1 global super power spot. Until then they will continue to arrogantly think everything they do is the bestest and the rest of the world can go suck it. Once they are no longer in that spot they will look outwards to other successful countries a lot more humbly.

Secondly the population of the USA will continue to be less and less white, or European. People of other races already do not really feel part of the American dream and are far more willing to look to say Denmark as an example of how to run things. The birth rate of the USA has already passed 50% non white, so in a decade or two things will move away from the people and generation who are hung up on communism and its tenuous link to socialism.

Lastly the current trend in America where education and healthcare costs continue to explode putting them our of reach of many needs to reach its tipping point and cause a massive social shift where people realize that for the average Joe they have about as much chance at a decent university education and healthcare as someone who lives in a SA township. At that point those issues will be solved by a big shift towards socialism probably largely modeled on the Canadian system.

The current US healthcare and education system is abusing the capitalist system and fear of communism to gouge people. Its insane. Doctors earn insane salaries and anything medical or education related costs the earth.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Strawman there. You are making your argument against the your definition of socialism, not their definition of socialism.

To have a good discussion we all need to read deeper than the surface level labels people use. Lets try listen to what people mean rather than the words they use.

Perhaps we should call it "Democratic Bernism" instead of socialism to unload the concept from biased judgement and make it easier to debate on the merits.
Maybe you're right? The way I see it, socialism literally cannot occur without some degree of coercion. This is like trying to redefine murder as voluntary, it does not compute. There is no alternative theory or translation that I'm aware of. Difficult to escape that mindset, but happy to be corrected or try understand what you mean.

I've often tried to redefine the word capitalism to no avail, so I know the frustration.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
4,502
Maybe you're right? The way I see it, socialism literally cannot occur without some degree of coercion. This is like trying to redefine murder as voluntary, it does not compute. There is no alternative theory or translation that I'm aware of. Difficult to escape that mindset, but happy to be corrected or try understand what you mean.

I've often tried to redefine the word capitalism to no avail, so I know the frustration.
Can you define what part of socialism results in coercion? I might be thick on this one so please point it out. Like in what part of the country do you think it will occur? If you mean in the economy then yes it will and is a kak idea and nobody for socialism actually wants it implemented in that sector.

I made this table for another thread to illustrate just how multi dimensional the term socialism is:


@konfab sorry I clicked multi quote by accident
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,334
It is what you measure the work that your body does in.
It isn't what most people define as bodily rights. For most people bodily rights consist of things like:

- Abortion
- Drug use
- Euthanasia
- Corporal punishment
- Sexual and marriage consent
- Gender decision and marriage equality

While property rights consist of things like:

- Property ownership and protection from asset seizure
- Taxation regulations
- Intellectual property
- The right to sell at mutually agreeable terms
- The right to do business

And human rights consist of things like:

- Due process
- Representative voting
- The right to privacy
- Legal representation
- Citizenship
- Healthcare
- Clean air
- Education

And so on. You cannot have this debate if you're going to reframe terms to fit your own predetermined views.

I asked you to define what the Democratic part of Democratic socialism said. You agreed that it meant the protection of individual rights.
I didn't agree with that definition, I asked you to further define what you meant by terms like rights and freedom. I think personally that those very terms are dangerous because they are a cipher for whatever values you want to impute to them. My freedom isn't your freedom and my rights aren't your rights. In fact my idea of rights is probably fundamentally different from your idea of rights.

You don't have individual rights under socialism. Period.
You certainly can do, and you can have individual freedoms. It all depends how you define them and what forms the socialism takes.

Voting rights like in every other country in the world. Why doesn't the US follow Sweden's lead in this since Sweden is the utopia?

Or are you suggesting that Sweden is a utopia because their voter ID laws make it such that all the non-white people can't vote? :unsure:
Voter ID laws are a voting protection, not a voting right.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,143
It isn't what most people define as bodily rights. For most people bodily rights consist of things like:
- Abortion
- Drug use
- Euthanasia
- Corporal punishment
- Sexual and marriage consent
- Gender decision and marriage equality

While property rights consist of things like:

- Property ownership and protection from asset seizure
- Taxation regulations
- Intellectual property
- The right to sell at mutually agreeable terms
- The right to do business

And human rights consist of things like:

- Due process
- Representative voting
- The right to privacy
- Legal representation
- Citizenship
You have weird definitions of what a right actually is. For example, what "right' is there with taxation?

And if I look at what rights you have defined, where would you put slavery? Under what you call "bodily" rights or under what you call "property rights". Is someone forcing you to work for them a violation of your bodily rights or is it a violation of your property rights because you are not free to sell to agreeable terms.


And human rights consist of things like:

- Due process
- Representative voting
- The right to privacy
- Legal representation
- Citizenship
Those would be civil rights, as those things don't really exist without the government. And I would put marriage under this, not bodily rights since it is a legal function of the state.


And so on. You cannot have this debate if you're going to reframe terms to fit your own predetermined views.
So like what you did. I am only working on what the US constitution is based on after all.

I didn't agree with that definition, I asked you to further define what you meant by terms like rights and freedom. I think personally that those very terms are dangerous because they are a cipher for whatever values you want to impute to them. My freedom isn't your freedom and my rights aren't your rights. In fact my idea of rights is probably fundamentally different from your idea of rights.
Of course they are different , my rights consist of things that the government is not allowed to do to individuals, and what individuals are not allowed to do to each other. It works from an assumption that everyone is free from the start and limits it from there. The things you need a really good thing to limit are life, liberty and property.

Your definition, is completely different. It starts off with people having no freedom, and then the government giving them the right to do certain things. Which is why you had to list a huge amount of different "rights".

You certainly can do, and you can have individual freedoms. It all depends how you define them and what forms the socialism takes.
With Socialism, the only freedom is what the government allows you to have.

There is an interesting correlation between economic freedom, which is the measure of socialism, and human flourishing. Countries that protect individual rights are very nice places to live. Countries that don't are sh!tholes. It is why Cuba, despite having free healthcare and free schools and [insert free thing] it is a horrible place to live.

Voter ID laws are a voting protection, not a voting right.
That is like saying that the police protecting your house from a thief isn't property rights, but a title deed is.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Can you define what part of socialism results in coercion? I might be thick on this one so please point it out. Like in what part of the country do you think it will occur? If you mean in the economy then yes it will and is a kak idea and nobody for socialism actually wants it implemented in that sector.

I made this table for another thread to illustrate just how multi dimensional the term socialism is:


@konfab sorry I clicked multi quote by accident
So simply put, you get 3 states of social interaction:
1. Coercion
2. Negotiation (In the middle, assumes no authority, collaborative, peaceful)
3. Submission

If you are advocating for any means of ownership that isn't negotiated (arising spontaneously) then it must be coerced. Socialism claims it tries to organize society whereby the means of production is owned by the working class, or community - depending on where you read. Definitions aside there is simply no way to "organize" ownership or wealth without coercion. "Organize" is a veiled term for, "you will do as we say". And you have to relinquish personal ownership to achieve the ends.

You can't put "organize" and "freedom" together. I suppose you can try solicit an altruistic arrangement from everybody (Give up some of what you own to the group for the greater good), but that's a tad different isn't it. That becomes a form of charity. If you're not soliciting, you're coercing. Simple as.

Anyway maybe I'm wrong. Will take a closer look at the graph now, thanks for providing :)
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
39,334
You have weird definitions of what a right actually is. For example, what "right' is there with taxation?
The right to not be unfairly taxed.

And if I look at what rights you have defined, where would you put slavery? Under what you call "bodily" rights or under what you call "property rights". Is someone forcing you to work for them a violation of your bodily rights or is it a violation of your property rights because you are not free to sell to agreeable terms.
Slavery is a human right. You have the right not to be sold into slavery.

But you bring up a good point. Most legal standards are based on a decision made between conflicting ideas of a right. One person's right to own property, and another person's right to not be classified as property come into conflict and the state makes a moral decision in one direction or another. This is the reality of a functioning legal system.

Those would be civil rights, as those things don't really exist without the government. And I would put marriage under this, not bodily rights since it is a legal function of the state.
Ok civil rights, that's fine. My definitions aren't perfect by any means.

Of course they are different , my rights consist of things that the government is not allowed to do to individuals, and what individuals are not allowed to do to each other. It works from an assumption that everyone is free from the start and limits it from there. The things you need a really good thing to limit are life, liberty and property.

Your definition, is completely different. It starts off with people having no freedom, and then the government giving them the right to do certain things. Which is why you had to list a huge amount of different "rights".
See above about slavery. You are overly reductive.

With Socialism, the only freedom is what the government allows you to have.
Not with democratic socialism it isn't. Ultimately you can vote to remove that government from power, and that is a popular endorsement of the government's policies. Unfortunately there is no system of government that will make everybody happy according to what they feel are their rights, but at least democratic voting gives the public enough power to overrule the government.
 
Top