Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TripItUp

Socialism and How it Can Destroy America

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Social programs are the bourgeoisie "buying off the revolution" by throwing bread crumbs to the proletariat.   I don't recall where this idea is written down  but I believe it long predates the New Deal.

Right, which is why what he wrote about Marx and Engels and especially Lenin is totally totally wrong, and his entire premises is wrong. 

@BladeRunner can argue against the efficiency of social programs- nothing wrong with that, and in many ways I might agree with him. But to argue that these programs lead to communism, dictatorship and murder- it’s not just fearmongering, it’s simply false. And no matter how many times he writes “I respectfully disagree”- no! There are not two equally respectable sides to this argument. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I don't think even fatguy and I are socialists. We want something less than rapacious capitalism and believe that the country can be healthier with better regulated industry and a population safe from poverty.

Of course, I could be wrong about fatguy; he may really be a communist but I haven't seen him at any of the meetings.

Hmmm, tough call.  I have considered starting a “Capitalism is immoral” thread here numerous times but never have because I feel like that would basically need me to devote a whole day to defending my position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Hmmm, tough call.  I have considered starting a “Capitalism is immoral” thread here numerous times but never have because I feel like that would basically need me to devote a whole day to defending my position.

Sounds interesting.  Hopefully you have a day with nothing to do soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Hmmm, tough call.  I have considered starting a “Capitalism is immoral” thread here numerous times but never have because I feel like that would basically need me to devote a whole day to defending my position.

I think there's a couple of TED talks on that as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

Right, which is why what he wrote about Marx and Engels and especially Lenin is totally totally wrong, and his entire premises is wrong. 

@BladeRunner can argue against the efficiency of social programs- nothing wrong with that, and in many ways I might agree with him. But to argue that these programs lead to communism, dictatorship and murder- it’s not just fearmongering, it’s simply false. And no matter how many times he writes “I respectfully disagree”- no! There are not two equally respectable sides to this argument. 

I respectfully disagree. ;)

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 6:48 PM, The Commish said:

So what exactly is it you take issue with regarding our public schools, fire men, police, medicare etc?

 

On 1/12/2020 at 7:25 PM, The Commish said:

Well, I was going to get there next and talk about all the subsides we have in the corn and sugar industries, the proposed rules changes in the new NAFTA (though there aren't a ton), the public highway system etc.  But it doesn't seem like real discussion is desired in here.  I've asked the two clear opponents some questions.  They don't seem interested in answering.

Kinda funny there aren't any answers to these.  These are the exact kinds of "Democratic Socialism" that exist in this country and I'd wager my life's savings that every single person who is "anti-socialism!!!!!!!!" has benefited/participated from/in at least one (if not all) of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Commish said:

\Kinda funny there aren't any answers to these.  These are the exact kinds of "Democratic Socialism" that exist in this country and I'd wager my life's savings that every single person who is "anti-socialism!!!!!!!!" has benefited/participated from/in at least one (if not all) of them

Well, it's kind of funny that those false talking point continuously gets repeated as if those are socialist programs.  They aren't.  Those talking points are simply meant to fool people into thinking they're already living in a Socialist world, so you might as well vote in the Socialists!

Medicare, Welfare and Social Security are the only programs I would consider socialist.  And I have not benefited from any of them at the moment.  Participation in SS only because it's taken out of my check.

Also, the fact that someone did or did not respond to your post previously does not determine your posts veracity (true or false) in any way.  Please don't mistake silence or non-responsiveness as proving you correct.

I do appreciate your posts, though.  :thumbup:

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Well, it's kind of funny that those false talking point continuously gets repeated as if those are socialist programs.  They aren't.  Those talking points are simply meant to fool people into thinking they're already living in a Socialist world, so you might as well vote in the Socialists!

Also, the fact that someone did or did not respond to your post previously does not determine your posts veracity (true or false) in any way.  Please don't mistake silence or non-responsiveness as proving you correct.

I do appreciate your posts, though.  :thumbup:

You're right. They arent socialist. They are democratically socialist

And the bold is NOT what i took from the lack of response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You're right. They arent socialist. They are democratically socialist

And the bold is NOT what i took from the lack of response

Uhm...no, they aren't.  "Democratic Socialism" doesn't exist.  It's a made up term to fool people.  Like Bigfoot, The Lochness Monster and  Lachuca Cabre.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Uhm...no, they aren't.  "Democratic Socialism" doesn't exist.  It's a made up term to fool people.  Like Bigfoot, The Lochness Monster and  Lachuca Cabre.

Of course it does. It's what those states sponsored and funded programs I listed  are.  This is econ 101 stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Hmmm, tough call.  I have considered starting a “Capitalism is immoral” thread here numerous times but never have because I feel like that would basically need me to devote a whole day to defending my position.

I would take the contrary position. Capitalism isn't sufficient for a morally configured social system; but under some conditions it might be necessary for one; and under many conditions it at least seems consistent with one. (Depending on how we sort out the semantic issue of exactly what capitalism entails and what it doesn't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Of course it does. It's what those states sponsored and funded programs I listed  are.  This is econ 101 stuff

:shrug:  I don't know what to tell you then.  those are not socialist programs (other than the ones I listed in my updated post).  

That's not econ 101, or 102 or 103 or anything.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

:shrug:  I don't know what to tell you then.  those are not socialist programs (other than the ones I listed in my updated post).  

That's not econ 101, or 102 or 103 or anything.

What exactly is your definition of socialist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

:shrug:  I don't know what to tell you then.  those are not socialist programs (other than the ones I listed in my updated post).  

That's not econ 101, or 102 or 103 or anything.

Can you explain how they aren’t?  You continue to say there not but not backing that up with a explanation or reason why.  TIA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Can you explain how they aren’t?  You continue to say there not but not backing that up with a explanation or reason why.  TIA.  

Socialism is a redistribution of wealth.  Forming a fire or police department is paying for a service.

I’m a pretty shocked by some of the posters who couldn’t differentiate.  This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Edited by jonessed
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Can you explain how they aren’t?  You continue to say there not but not backing that up with a explanation or reason why.  TIA.  

At the most basic level fire, police and military are not a "means of production". Also, ALL political systems have a fire, police and military to protect it's populace (well, in the case of Socialism and other extreme systems it's to mostly oppress the populace) so to assume they are inherently "Socialist" is factually incorrect.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonessed said:

Socialism is a redistribution of wealth.  Forming a fire or police department is paying for a service.

I’m a pretty shocked by some of the posters who couldn’t differentiate.  This is pretty basic stuff.

Beat me to it.  :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What exactly is your definition of socialist?

Bernie and AOC as examples.  Probably Warren too but I don't know if she is a sincere Socialist.  She seems to be campaigning that way just to get votes, so she's probably more of a liar and fraud than anything else.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Bernie and AOC as examples.  Probably Warren too but I don't know if she is a sincere Socialist.  She seems to be campaigning that way just to get votes, so she's probably more of a liar and fraud than anything else.

Those are examples not definitions. I guess i should ask what your definition of socialism is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Those are examples not definitions. I guess i should ask what your definition of socialism is. 

And what better way to give a definition than an actual example?  Live and in color.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Socialism is a redistribution of wealth.  Forming a fire or police department is paying for a service.

I’m a pretty shocked by some of the posters who couldn’t differentiate.  This is pretty fundamental stuff.

So I’m still not clear on the difference, guess I wasn’t paying enough attention in economics 101. If the “paying for it” is forced, ie taxed without an option to op out, how is that not a redistribution of wealth?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

At the most basic level fire, police and military are not a "means of production". Also, ALL political systems have a fire, police and military to protect it's populace (well, in the case of Socialism and other extreme systems it's to mostly oppress the populace) so to assume they are inherently "Socialist" is factually incorrect.

Couldn’t another interpretation be that all other political systems (at least ones that employ fire, police, etc) have an element of socialism in them?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, msommer said:

I think there's a couple of TED talks on that as well

This one (The dirty secret of capitalism — and a new way forward) isn’t necessarily about capitalism being immoral but does a good job (in my opinion) of explaining what’s wrong in our current version of capitalism. 

Several years ago I was a libertarian but evolved into a plain, old liberal after realizing that markets seemingly weren’t working correctly.  I’m more convinced than ever that there is a new, better path for us to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Kinda funny there aren't any answers to these.  These are the exact kinds of "Democratic Socialism" that exist in this country and I'd wager my life's savings that every single person who is "anti-socialism!!!!!!!!" has benefited/participated from/in at least one (if not all) of them

Well, it's kind of funny that those false talking point continuously gets repeated as if those are socialist programs.  They aren't.  Those talking points are simply meant to fool people into thinking they're already living in a Socialist world, so you might as well vote in the Socialists!

I sort of agree a little bit with both of you.

On the one hand, "Democratic Socialism" kind of exists. Bernie and AOC refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists. They exist and there are larger organizations that use that name. They are socialists in the sense that they seem to hate capitalism and want the government to do more things -- provide more education and health care, etc. -- and they are democratic in the sense that they want to vote that stuff in rather than having a violent revolution.

But Democratic Socialism is not what, for example, the Scandinavians do. https://www.aier.org/article/capitalism-saved-sweden/ They are more capitalist than the U.S. by reasonable measures. And the main parties are referred to as something more like socialist democrats instead of democratic socialists when translated into English.

Also, socialism is not redistribution. Socialism is government (or other public) control of the means of production. Social security is kind of socialism because it's government control of social insurance and savings programs. Public schools and firefighting and mail delivery are also kind of examples of socialism, but not great ones because the arguments for having the government do those things are that they're special cases -- they're not arguments against private industry generally.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Medicare, Welfare and Social Security are the only programs I would consider socialist.  And I have not benefited from any of them at the moment.

I think you very well may have benefited from each of these.

Have a family member or friend who may have gotten extremely ill or died without medicare assistance? Coworker or community member who may have resorted to more nefarious methods of getting food without welfare? An elderly parent or grandparent or close family friend that would be relying on you for financial assistance without social security?

It is easy to ignore the societal benefits of these programs. Harder to ignore the personal impact once you look more closely

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Socialism is a redistribution of wealth.  Forming a fire or police department is paying for a service.

I’m a pretty shocked by some of the posters who couldn’t differentiate.  This is pretty fundamental stuff.

Medicare for All is just paying for health services.   Free tuition is just paying for education services.  Income security via a UBI is just like paying for police services.   All of these are direct benefits for some and lesser or merely indirect for others.     These are all services which society may conclude (or may not) better handled by government than private companies.  They are all - military, police, and fire included every bit "socialism" when provided by the government, by society.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, the moops said:
2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Medicare, Welfare and Social Security are the only programs I would consider socialist.  And I have not benefited from any of them at the moment.

I think you very well may have benefited from each of these.

Have a family member or friend who may have gotten extremely ill or died without medicare assistance? Coworker or community member who may have resorted to more nefarious methods of getting food without welfare? An elderly parent or grandparent or close family friend that would be relying on you for financial assistance without social security?

It is easy to ignore the societal benefits of these programs. Harder to ignore the personal impact once you look more closely

He has benefited from Social Security and Medicare every time someone has retired opening up opportunities for either himself or his customers.  He has benefited from welfare programs every time his tax bill has been due because welfare provides some security for the better off at a lower price than law enforcement.  He would also benefit from a healthier and better educated populace even if most of the benefits go to other people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

He has benefited from Social Security and Medicare every time someone has retired opening up opportunities for either himself or his customers.  He has benefited from welfare programs every time his tax bill has been due because welfare provides some security for the better off at a lower price than law enforcement.  He would also benefit from a healthier and better educated populace even if most of the benefits go to other people.

I wouldn’t necessarily call Medicare or Social Security socialist in nature.  Not entirely anyway.  The government doesn’t really own and redistribute the capital.  It’s more held in trust for that individual to have access to later.  At least that’s the way they were designed.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jonessed said:

 

I wouldn’t necessarily call Medicare or Social Security socialist.  The original goals weren’t income redistribution.  The Medicare and Social Security taxes are really geared more towards income savings than distribution.  Their subsequent implementation could be more of a mix though.

If the underlying goal is income redistribution then I would argue that the program is socialist in nature.  There’s definitely a gray area though.

Socialism might as a benefit redistribute income or wealth, but that isn't the definition.   Was Conrail (the government took ownership of six freight railroads for about half a dozen years)  not socialism?   Or Amtrak?

ETA:  And Medicare certainly is a "social organization ...[where] ...the means of ...distribution .. [of most senior healthcare is] ... owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Socialism might as a benefit redistribute income or wealth, but that isn't the definition.   Was Conrail (the government took ownership of six freight railroads for about half a dozen years)  not socialism?   Or Amtrak?

It would be difficult to have socialism without income/wealth redistribution.  Whether that redistribution is a benefit or not is obviously debatable.

 

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dkp993 said:
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

Socialism is a redistribution of wealth.  Forming a fire or police department is paying for a service.

I’m a pretty shocked by some of the posters who couldn’t differentiate.  This is pretty fundamental stuff.

So I’m still not clear on the difference, guess I wasn’t paying enough attention in economics 101. If the “paying for it” is forced, ie taxed without an option to op out, how is that not a redistribution of wealth?

@jonessed any thoughts here?  (For clarity, honestly asking not taking a shot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more socialism you have, the less redistribution is warranted. With pure socialism, there'd be no place for redistribution at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

@jonessed any thoughts here?  (For clarity, honestly asking not taking a shot)

Taxing to pay for services isn’t socialist or capitalist.  Technically, a completely socialist system wouldn’t have any need for taxes.  Everything would be owned by the state.  Obviously the resulting goods would then be owned and redistributed by the state.  Not sure how you can have one without the other.

I guess the argument comes down to what’s a service under most any normal form of government and what’s a service that’s more specific to Europe’s Democratic Socialist countries.  Hence, the term socialist.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, there is no reason for anyone working 40 hours a week not to make a decent living.  Pay employees, and “socialism” isn’t necessary.  There is no excuse for an extremely profitable company to not pay a proper wage.

I’m always amazed how people can be against both higher wages and social safety nets.  I find it disgusting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

And what better way to give a definition than an actual example?  Live and in color.

Thanks....and your definition of socialism?  I ask because I think it's important to understand another's starting point before attempting to engage them....TIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jonessed said:

Taxing to pay for services isn’t socialist or capitalist.  Technically, a completely socialist system wouldn’t have any need for taxes.  Everything would be owned by the state.  Obviously the resulting goods would then be owned and redistributed by the state.  Not sure how you can have one without the other.

I guess the argument comes down to what’s a service under most any normal form of government and what’s a service that’s more specific to Europe’s Democratic Socialist countries.  Hence, the term socialist.

So then you agree that extending education to college and/or providing healthcare for everyone isn't socialist?  I know for certain it's not capitalist.  But both are exactly raising taxes to pay for a service.

ETA:  And I'd say that the more accurate phrasing would be "resulting goods would then be owned and distributed by the state".  Redistributed implies that someone else owned them, gave them up to the government and the government then gave them out as they saw fit.  In a socialistic society the government owns it from the beginning all the way through to finished product, then provides the product as they see fit.  

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I sort of agree a little bit with both of you.

On the one hand, "Democratic Socialism" kind of exists. Bernie and AOC refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists. They exist and there are larger organizations that use that name. They are socialists in the sense that they seem to hate capitalism and want the government to do more things -- provide more education and health care, etc. -- and they are democratic in the sense that they want to vote that stuff in rather than having a violent revolution.

But Democratic Socialism is not what, for example, the Scandinavians do. https://www.aier.org/article/capitalism-saved-sweden/ They are more capitalist than the U.S. by reasonable measures. And the main parties are referred to as something more like socialist democrats instead of democratic socialists when translated into English.

Also, socialism is not redistribution. Socialism is government (or other public) control of the means of production. Social security is kind of socialism because it's government control of social insurance and savings programs. Public schools and firefighting and mail delivery are also kind of examples of socialism, but not great ones because the arguments for having the government do those things are that they're special cases -- they're not arguments against private industry generally.

This is a sign of the times I believe.  The terms are attempting to be changed in some cases.  In other cases significantly different concepts are being lumped together as the same thing.  My comments thus far have been an attempt to push back on that movement.  It's a boogyman argument IMO.  My position is pretty much yours on this in terms of how I view it, but it feels like if we start here, we've missed all the logic of how things are different in getting here (if that makes sense) and I believe that part is pretty important.  

The reality is, this country isn't close to an actual "socialist" country.  It's just not and it won't be in my lifetime or my great grandchildren's lifetime.  I am curious about the bold and what you mean or what you're talking about specifically though.  Can you flesh this out a bit more?  What's "special" about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, the socialist things we have now are ok because they're special cases and we've had them a long time. But we can't have any more because that would let full-blown socialism in the door. I don't agree with that argument. Health care is screaming for a "socialist" approach because it works better than capitalism. The proof is all over the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Ok, the socialist things we have now are ok because they're special cases and we've had them a long time. But we can't have any more because that would let full-blown socialism in the door. I don't agree with that argument. Health care is screaming for a "socialist" approach because it works better than capitalism. The proof is all over the world.

Extremely long wait times (that is, if you get in before you die) and sub quality care is your proof?  No thanks.  Nothing screams for Socialist anything.

I agree we need to make changes to our health care, but I'm not willing to sacrifice quality and access to do it.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roadkill1292 said:

Ok, the socialist things we have now are ok because they're special cases and we've had them a long time. But we can't have any more because that would let full-blown socialism in the door. I don't agree with that argument. Health care is screaming for a "socialist" approach because it works better than capitalism. The proof is all over the world.

This is what drives me nuts about this whole topic. 

Here in the states, people want to act like these are the most crazy, radical, impractical ideas ever.

So how come all of these other countries can do it, but we can't?

We're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. 

If they can do it, we can certainly do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Extremely long wait times (that is, if you get in before you die) and sub quality care is your proof?  No thanks.  Nothing screams for Socialist anything.

I agree we need to make changes to our health care, but I'm not willing to sacrifice quality and access to do it.

Those "socialist" countries all have a higher healthcare ranking than the US.

They pay less, and they get better care.

HOW DOES THE U.S. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM COMPARE TO OTHER COUNTRIES?

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

The U.S. spends more on health care but has worse health outcomes than comparable countries around the globe. This holds true across age and income groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skoo said:

This is what drives me nuts about this whole topic. 

Here in the states, people want to act like these are the most crazy, radical, impractical ideas ever.

So how come all of these other countries can do it, but we can't?

We're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. 

If they can do it, we can certainly do it.

We actually should be able to do it better. Because my political opponents tell me all the time that we're the best. We can put together the most effective military machine the world has ever seen but can't run a health care system that will make life better for everyone in this country? Give me a break. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Extremely long wait times (that is, if you get in before you die) and sub quality care is your proof?  No thanks.  Nothing screams for Socialist anything.

I agree we need to make changes to our health care, but I'm not willing to sacrifice quality and access to do it.

This belief is the equivalent of an "old wives' tale."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roadkill1292 said:

This belief is the equivalent of an "old wives' tale."

No, it's not.

The "old wives" tale is the one where people are extolling the "virtues" of Single Payer care.  No thanks.

While just anecdotal, I've talked to several Canadians to further bolster my claims.  If you need emergency care, like you just got into a car wreck and need immediate attention, you're good.  For anything else, good luck.

Single Payer systems save money by hoping you just give up on seeing someone.  Or die before you get in.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

No, it's not.

 

The author of this piece works for a right-wing think tank that is ideologically opposed to single payer.  Do you have any less biased links to support your claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roadkill1292 said:

We actually should be able to do it better. Because my political opponents tell me all the time that we're the best. We can put together the most effective military machine the world has ever seen but can't run a health care system that will make life better for everyone in this country? Give me a break. 

Nah, we the people will just vote for "starve the beast" tax cuts for the rich because we don't want healthy poor folks.  If they are healthy they might compete for what is owed me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder how many of the people who decry "socialism" when talking about Bernie or AOC or Progressives in general would also consider themselves big fans of Teddy Roosevelt (you know, the ultimate "man's man" President). I think many of them would be surprised to hear how closely his views aligned with the modern Progressive movements:

Quote

In June 1910, the former President returned to the United States, ready to do battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Over the next two years, as he contemplated an unprecedented third run for the presidency, in numerous speeches and essays, TR spelled out what Progressivism might mean for America.

To begin with, it spelled the end of America’s naïve exceptionalism. Where once the United States had prided itself on its superiority to the monarchies of Europe, it was now lagging behind the governments of Western Europe, and especially Germany, in its commitment to social welfare. It was time for America to become part of the larger “world movement” and adopt an expanded conception of the aims of the federal government.

Progressivism also meant moving beyond the “shopworn” protection of individual rights, especially property rights. Because these rights were grounded in a permanent view of human nature as essentially self-interested, Roosevelt concluded that the whole idea of natural rights was scientifically wrong and morally obsolete. Evolution meant that there was no such thing as a fixed human nature; human beings could progress beyond their selfish individualism. Roosevelt’s goal was to move Americans beyond purely “legal” justice toward a higher, more “ethical” justice where citizens thought less about their individual rights and more about rights “developed in duty.”[17]

In his landmark “New Nationalism” speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one’s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men “possess more than they have earned,” while others “have earned more than they possess.”[18] The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about “social justice” through redistribution. Roosevelt was surely correct when he observed that the “New Nationalism” implied “a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had.”[19]

At the same time, Roosevelt denied that his reforms were meant to bring about socialism. In essays written during the closing days of his presidency, he had explained where he could and could not work with the socialists. But what he meant by socialism was the Marxist variety, with its calls for violent revolution, the abolition of private property, and the withering away of the state. As the essays make clear, he was not the least troubled by a peaceful, gradual transition to democratic socialism with its promise of social justice. In fact, he considered proponents of these reforms nothing more than “advanced” liberals.

Heritage Foundation: Theodore Roosevelt - Progressive Crusader

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

The author of this piece works for a right-wing think tank that is ideologically opposed to single payer.  Do you have any less biased links to support your claims?

Here's an NPR interview with a Canadian doctor.  BladeRunner's "if you get in before you die" seems misleading to me, but there are long lines for non-emergency treatments like hip replacements.

Quote

On the issue of long wait times and physician availability

I think its critical for people to know that when Canadians are seriously sick — when the issue is urgent — they don't wait. So this myth that people are sort of dying in the streets, waiting for care is just that — a myth. Part of the reason that we know that is because our health outcomes are good. When compared to the U.S., outcomes for a whole variety of different diagnoses — including life expectancy, including infant mortality — all of these things actually, the Canadian system delivers as good or better care on average across the population than we see in the U.S.

But you are absolutely right, when people have a non-urgent issue in Canada, sometimes they wait. Sometimes they wait, in my opinion, too long. That's something we're really grappling with here is trying to figure out how we're going to deal with that.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/24/553336111/a-canadian-doctor-explains-how-her-countrys-single-payer-health-care-system-work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I would take the contrary position. Capitalism isn't sufficient for a morally configured social system; but under some conditions it might be necessary for one; and under many conditions it at least seems consistent with one. (Depending on how we sort out the semantic issue of exactly what capitalism entails and what it doesn't.)

I'd read this, and appreciate the effort put in, if it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Juxtatarot.  But we're not comparing a single payer system with wait times to a single payer system without wait times.  We're comparing it to a non-single payer system, in which many people can't afford to get non-urgent care at all.  So I think we need to get some more information to really make good comparisons.  It's better to wait six months to get a free hip replacement than to never get a hip replacement at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.