Are (most) Socialists bullies?

[Aphex_Twin]

"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."

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. 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?

Moderator Action: Troll thread - Warned !!! - Rik
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[SomethingWitty]

"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."

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. 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?

No. In fact I'd say that most socialists want to stop bullies.

 

[Kozmos]

Evo mi vec ide na zivce,treba te Aphexu poslati na goli otok da te malo reeduciramo o socijalizmu na balkanski nacin...

And what you specified is a hardline commie atittude.(spelling?)

Im Technocratic DemoSocialist and damn proud of it.DemoSocialism FTW!

 

[vyapti]

Read Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons".

 

[amadeus]

"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."

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?

 

[zulu9812]

To the original poster, here is an alternative thought:

Capitalists want deregulation so that it is easier to bully the little guy. Socialists want rules so as to prevent bullying.

 

[amadeus]

Capitalists want deregulation so that it is easier to bully the little guy.

Bully how?

 

[Kozmos]

Corporation>>>>Government>>>>small buisness.

Thats how it works in this Illuminated world.

 

[vyapti]

'the little guy' doesn't have the political or economic power to prevent externalities. For example, If an individual lives down river from a polluting smelter, he has no choice but to accept the smelter's pollution. The smelter is causing damage to others and not absorbing all of the economic costs of its activities--it is shifting the social cost of pollution to others who are receiving benefit from the activity.

 

[newfangle]

Most socialists are those without power (take for instance the droves of white teenegers that label themselves this way). They want more of it. Since they have no skills or abilities to speak off, the only way they can achieve power is through force. Whence, socialism.

QED

 

[Cuivienen]

If they can put "force" to propogate socialism then they already have "power". The idea that those without power use socialism solely to gain power is laughable - most do it simply to gain benefits. There are always opportunist politicians, but they don't really have any ideals and just play on whatever is popular.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Socialists don't want to regulate your personal lives, or really any of the parts of your life that you are entitled to, socialists simply seek to implement an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure proper equality and fairness, to ensure that the rights of the individual and of the people (including the right to privacy) are unblemished.

Socialists don't seek to regulate what you ate for lunch. Rather, they seek to regulate the supply side of what you ate, to ensure that the workers involved in the supply are treated properly and that the best public interest is served by the production of resources needed to get that lunch to you.

 

[zulu9812]

Most socialists are those without power (take for instance the droves of white teenegers that label themselves this way). They want more of it. Since they have no skills or abilities to speak off, the only way they can achieve power is through force. Whence, socialism.

QED

Horribly, horribly incorrect!

Socialism specifically rejects violence. It is communism which calls for the bloody uprising, followed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To clairfy why socialism rejects this, we must look at the basic unit of politics. Conservatives believe that the base unit of politics is the family, liberals believe that it is individual and communists believe that it is class. Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is society as a whole and that any kind of civil war or bloody uprising would tear society apart and thus defeat the original goals of Marx - which are freedom, equality and fraternity.

Any notion that Socialists desire a bloody revolution, or seek to take power by force is simply WRONG.

 

[Urederra]

<snip> the original goals of Marx - which are freedom, liberty and fraternity.

Really, It looks like the motto of the french revolution. But, with liberty instead of egalite.

BTW, what is the difference between freedom and liberty?. My english is not that accurate.

 

[Hitro]

Most socialists are those without power (take for instance the droves of white teenegers that label themselves this way). They want more of it. Since they have no skills or abilities to speak off, the only way they can achieve power is through force. Whence, socialism.

QED

Hilbert would have wept if he had seen such a proof.

 

[zulu9812]

Really, It looks like the motto of the french revolution. But, with liberty instead of egalite.

That's the point: Marx wanted to further the goals of the French Revolution

BTW, what is the difference between freedom and liberty?. My english is not that accurate.

My bad, I was getting mixed up with the original French - it now reads "freedom, equality and fraternity"

 

[Irish Caesar]

Is there a "manifesto" of sorts for socialism? I'm just curious, as I can't think of one off the top of my head.

BTW, what is the difference between freedom and liberty?

There really isn't any.

 

[zulu9812]

Is there a "manifesto" of sorts for socialism? I'm just curious, as I can't think of one off the top of my head.

There isn't really a 'founder' for socialism in the same way as communism; the closest you'd get is probably Trotsky?

 

[shadowdude]

Socialists don't want to regulate your personal lives, or really any of the parts of your life that you are entitled to, socialists simply seek to implement an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure proper equality and fairness, to ensure that the rights of the individual and of the people (including the right to privacy) are unblemished.

Socialists don't seek to regulate what you ate for lunch. Rather, they seek to regulate the supply side of what you ate, to ensure that the workers involved in the supply are treated properly and that the best public interest is served by the production of resources needed to get that lunch to you.

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?

 

[zulu9812]

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?

Well, for example, we might regulate under what conditions an employer can justifiably fire his or her staff, but we wouldn't regulate their sexual lifestlye (as the current crop of conservatives seem keen on).