Are (most) Socialists bullies?

[sysyphus]

Socialists seem paternalistic by their very nature. If they believe that they can control your income, why shouldn't they be able to control your movements and behavior?

Because we already have the neo-cons trying to do that already.

 

[Cuivienen]

By implementing an elaborate system of checks and balances and by regulating the supply side of products, don't you inherently end up regulating individuals?

"Regulating the supply side"? Only as far as socialism prevents exploitive actions on the part of corporations or individuals. Socialism does not actually stop the production of anything, or discourage anything.


Please note that I'm not really a socialist.

 

[Aramazd]

"Regulating the supply side"? Only as far as socialism prevents exploitive actions on the part of corporations or individuals. Socialism does not actually stop the production of anything, or discourage anything.


Please note that I'm not really a socialist.

By taxing a business it reduces the amount of employees that are hired. Thus, less products are produced by a company, so prices are higher than if there were more of the product.

Socialists are only bullies if people believe they are. The same goes for neo-cons.

 

[El_Machinae]

Socialists are no more bullies than Capitalists. Both seek to use the law to get power over the other.

"You cannot have food unless you work, or it is given to you, that is the law of capitalism"

"You cannot keep the labours of your work, you must give up some to feed those who cannot work to feed themselves, that is the law of capitalism"

Capitalism seeks the law to enforce property rights, socialism merely shifts the rules regarding property rights.

 

[El_Machinae]

By taxing a business it reduces the amount of employees that are hired. Thus, less products are produced by a company, so prices are higher than if there were more of the product..

It also requires that a company charge more to get the necessary profits. Because the goods cost more, fewer luxury goods are purchased. This means that businesses will focus on providing necessities. This usually stagnates innovation, because a lot of innovation is begun with an eye towards filling a luxury-good gap.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

By implementing an elaborate system of checks and balances and by regulating the supply side of products, don't you inherently end up regulating individuals?

No, because individual freedoms aren't compromised in any way.

 

[amadeus]

No, because individual freedoms aren't compromised in any way.

Your definition of "individual freedom" differs very greatly from mine then. I would not consider myself "free" if there were not a variety of products and services availible for my selection.

 

[amadeus]

Because we already have the neo-cons trying to do that already.

If you're talking about the bloated social spending, I agree completely.

 

[El_Machinae]

As well, in a socialist system, the freedom to irreparably screw up your own life is reduced, and your freedom to LET people screw up their lives is reduced as well (so, you'll end up funding rehab for junkies and whatnot)

 

[sysyphus]

It also requires that a company charge more to get the necessary profits. Because the goods cost more, fewer luxury goods are purchased. This means that businesses will focus on providing necessities. This usually stagnates innovation, because a lot of innovation is begun with an eye towards filling a luxury-good gap.

You both seem to forget that taxes aren't just money that vanish into thin air.

The money from taxes is spent on many things, which goes into the salaries of government workers who then spend the money on things purchased from private business, or the money is spent by the government on goods and services provided by the private sector.

Taxes also take the form of research grants, funding research that wouldn't take place because private industry isn't willing to risk investing in the research (the return on research capital is VERY long term), so this is essential for innovation.

Taxes also pay for infrastructure and regulation that reduces corruption and other costly crimes (robberies etc.), making private enterprise more viable.

Taxes also are used to help turn economically dependant people into economically productive people.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

"We want to have a say in how you run your own life, where and how you work, where you live, how you raise your children, what you eat, who you can talk to and what you say."

Strange. This seems to me to be much more the attitude of the right-wing than of socialists.


"You will continue to spend all your money, because the economy must be competitive on the world-stage. We know your needs better than you do. Consume, consume, consume!"

"Unions are bad. Do not join them. Same goes for student guilds. So we'll start slowly axing them into oblivion. Oh, by the way, unfair-dismissal laws are now out the window, plus another few thousand jobs. But this in no way impinges on your personal freedom. Just behave yourself at work and maybe, just maybe, you won't lose your job. You may not like it, but we know it is in your best interests to be a good little worker and consumer."

"Move to the newer suburbs, buy a house at a hugely inflated price. Take out a mortgage you'll be lucky to have paid off at 90. This generates wealth, making YOUR situation better. Just trust your masters...

"Working mother? Want some decent-price childcare while you try to support your family? Get real, b***h! Woman's proper place, remember?"

"Gay? Wanna adopt and raise children? Eff off, punk!"

"Let's deregulate shopping hours. More freedom for you little people, right? Awww, little grocer's and butcher's stores can't compete with the big chain-supermarkets and have all had to shut down. There's market forces for ya, huh? Looks like you'll just have to live only on imported supermarket food. But at least now you can buy it whenever you want."

"Terrorists are threatening our great nation! We're all gonna DIE! Hang on, weren't you just chatting with a guy in a robe and turban? How DARE you give information to the enemy! You're in for some serious questioning, buster! And don't feed us that old 'he was only a taxi-driver' line."

"What was that? You want the troops brought home? You don't like Mr. Howard's new IR laws? Them's un-Australian words, mate. Off to the slammer!"

No offence Aphex, just the observation that it's actually right-wingers that want more control over individuals' lives. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sysy: I was generalizing. There is a certain level of taxation that grows an economy. I actually WAS assuming that some taxes disappear into thin air, because (while they provide salaries) there is no real 'good' produced by the tax.

For example, spending money on research will help progress a society (personally, I would recommend Alzheimer's!) - but spending money on a bureaucratic agency with a mandate of inspecting potholes before they are filled (with full documentation) provides no real service.

Money needs to produce something useful when it is spent, or it won't help. I LOVE being in a country where I pay taxes to get the services we do ... but some of it is wasted, by default.

 

[amadeus]

"You will continue to spend all your money, because the economy must be competitive on the world-stage. We know your needs better than you do. Consume, consume, consume!"

Collectivist baloney number one. Nobody forces a person to purchase items.

"Unions are bad. Do not join them. Same goes for student guilds. So we'll start slowly axing them into oblivion.

Collectivist baloney number two. I don't support action to make unions illegal, but I do support action to stop them from becoming a monopoly on labor. With organizations like the AFL-CIO, they're dangerously close to being that.

Oh, by the way, unfair-dismissal laws are now out the window, plus another few thousand jobs.

Collectivist baloney number three. A state that supports the free market wouldn't mandate a company to reduce the number of personnel. That's the decision of the business owners.

But this in no way impinges on your personal freedom. Just behave yourself at work and maybe, just maybe, you won't lose your job. You may not like it, but we know it is in your best interests to be a good little worker and consumer."

Collectivist baloney number four. You're the only one espousing paternalistic goobledygook here, not us.

"Move to the newer suburbs, buy a house at a hugely inflated price. Take out a mortgage you'll be lucky to have paid off at 90. This generates wealth, making YOUR situation better. Just trust your masters...

Collectivist baloney number five. Again, this goes back to one and four to some extent. No legislation in a free market requires an individual to own a piece of property that the state has selected for them.

"Working mother? Want some decent-price childcare while you try to support your family? Get real, b***h! Woman's proper place, remember?"

Collectivist baloney number six. The mother had many chances to avoid her present situation. You're just using an emotional situation to try and draw people to your cause.

"Gay? Wanna adopt and raise children? Eff off, punk!"

Collectivist baloney number seven. Economics and these types of social policies are mutually exclusive.

"Let's deregulate shopping hours. More freedom for you little people, right? Awww, little grocer's and butcher's stores can't compete with the big chain-supermarkets and have all had to shut down. There's market forces for ya, huh?

Collectivist baloney number eight. What do you expect to happen? Should the government subsidize businesses that fail? If I open a lemonade stand next to an Orange Julius, what do you think is going to happen? Let's apply a little common sense here.

Looks like you'll just have to live only on imported supermarket food. But at least now you can buy it whenever you want."

Collectivist baloney number nine. If there's a demand for locally grown food, wouldn't the supermarket sell that, or are you running this supermarket? By the way, I'm at the supermarket all the time and I rarely see imported food.

"Terrorists are threatening our great nation! We're all gonna DIE! Hang on, weren't you just chatting with a guy in a robe and turban? How DARE you give information to the enemy! You're in for some serious questioning, buster! And don't feed us that old 'he was only a taxi-driver' line."

Collectivist baloney number ten. How many people have been detained in Australia or the U.S. for talking to someone in a turban? You're doing an encore performance of number six. When public policy is up for debate, I'll take logic over tears.

"What was that? You want the troops brought home? You don't like Mr. Howard's new IR laws? Them's un-Australian words, mate. Off to the slammer!"

Collectivist baloney number eleven. How many people have been detained for speaking against the Australian government?

No offence Aphex, just the observation that it's actually right-wingers that want more control over individuals' lives. Actions speak louder than words.

You used the term "right-winger" to describe a whole lot of people, but that doesn't accurately reflect the actions of a state in an environment that supports economic liberties.

 

[BasketCase]

Something a radical leftie once spouted while I was in college:

"Women should not have the option to stay at home and raise children--because if they are allowed to choose for themselves, too many will make that choice."

Mildly paraphrased, but the basic idea is very clear.

 

[Cuivienen]

Something a radical leftie once spouted while I was in college:

"Women should not have the option to stay at home and raise children--because if they are allowed to choose for themselves, too many will make that choice."

Mildly paraphrased, but the basic idea is very clear.

You generalize. You make the assumption that the deluded idea of one is the deluded idea of many. This is untrue.

 

[Cuivienen]

By taxing a business it reduces the amount of employees that are hired. Thus, less products are produced by a company, so prices are higher than if there were more of the product.

The problem is that current corporate taxes are so low as to be insignificant. Certainly there is a level beyond which corporate taxes would become debilitating to a company's potential, but, at least in the US, this point is so much higher than the current tax levels that it is absurd to say that higher taxes will weaken business. Profit margins in modern corporations are far larger than they need be for a company to function effectively; indeed, profit margins are so high and taxes so low as to encourage lazy and inefficient work on the part of the companies. An interesting and tangential point that just came to me while posting this: When you can make huge profits selling the same stuff, why bother innovating?

Perhaps in some European countries the corporate tax rate is much closer or even over this "ideal" taxation level; I don't know.


Edit: Part of the problem with rapid rises in taxes would be that companies would attempt to maintain their previous profit margins, both increasing prices and cutting jobs. I'm not really sure how you could work around that, but it's an ailment of the free market, not of socialism.

Another Edit: Of course, some areas of industry (travel, for example) would not receive higher taxes. Service suppliers tend to make much smaller profit margins than product suppliers.

 

[Babbler]

"We want to have a say in how you run your own life, where and how you work, where you live, how you raise your children, what you eat, who you can talk to and what you say."

As said before, that covers a lot of people, both left and right.

Just a small section of the panoplia of restrictions the popularly-known doctrine of Socialism offers today. I'm not picking on social justice and equality just about now, just on this interesting (and rather curious) desire to meddle and interfere in the affairs of private life. Or in other words, the regulations.

Most economic regulations are there the modderate the exceses of the market and bussiness. They do not interfear with the private conduct of most cietiezns. Besides, if society has a important stake in the matter, then the state has a right to interfear with the private affairs between consenting adults.

Dear Socialists, why do you want to regulate us so much? Why are you not satisfied with the more simple (and arguably more efficient) method of the taxing of income?

You mean income tax? The left and right both do it -- it is a large source of funds. I give a reason for regulations above.

 

[El_Machinae]

Profit margins in modern corporations are far larger than they need be for a company to function effectively

Very true. But remember why people initially invested in the company - to make money. I regularly invest, and because I regularly invest, companies are encouraged to form. Does that make sense? If you have a great idea for a company, but you don't have the money, you're going to need investors. If the company is taxed too much, then I (as an investor) am unlikely to invest (spending my money elsewhere). This means that your company never gets off the ground, and we don't get a new restaurant, or news service, or tow-truck company.

Now, alternatively, if people invested more of their money (instead of spending it on luxury goods) our economy would do much better.

 

[amadeus]

Profit margins in modern corporations are far larger than they need be for a company to function effectively;

That's where the problem lies. You've established your own standard as to how much of a profit a person or corporation can earn before they no longer "need" it.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Your definition of "individual freedom" differs very greatly from mine then. I would not consider myself "free" if there were not a variety of products and services availible for my selection.

You're obviously an antagonistic troll, otherwise you can't read. Please point out where I said "socialists seek to deny the people access to whatever goods or services they desire"? Sounds to me you're more accurately describing capitalism, which seeks to deny the people access to products that bring them out of the cycle of consumption.