SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[ForgedinHell]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

[Notvacka]

State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

You may of corse define things any way you please. But demanding that others don't contradict you is a bit much. Or perhaps it's a typo?

[reasonvemotion]

Is this the Sabbath (Saturday) Sermon a day early. Sunday Sermon discontinued?

[Kayla]

there are multiple definitions of socialism

throwing 'socialist' around as an epithet is about as informative as going around saying 'grrr me no like'

as i understand it - as explained by my math teacher - there are several definitions

there is the soviet version - which regarded socialism as a system where means of production are own by the state - or by the people in theory - but total economic equality has not yet been achieved

there is west european and canadian version - also known as social democracy - which allows lots of capitalist activities but taxes them and redistributes the wealth

there is the cuban version which regards socialism and communism as synonyms and defines them as whatever it is that they have in cuba - most americans who call themselves socialists or communists are - according to my math teacher - retarded and use socialism and communism in that way

your definition does not correspond to any common - or even rare - uses of the word by is unique to you

your definition is thus worthless

my math teacher was born and grew up in the soviet union before it fell apart so presumably he knows what he is talking about

[ForgedinHell]

State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

You may of corse define things any way you please. But demanding that others don't contradict you is a bit much. Or perhaps it's a typo?

Just showing everyone here what an utter fool you are. Accusing me of falsely defining socialism, and when I hand you the chance to do so, what do you do? Refuse the offer. Why? Because you know I'm right.

[ForgedinHell]

Is this the Sabbath (Saturday) Sermon a day early. Sunday Sermon discontinued?

You really need to remove the word "reason" from your user name. It's false advertising.

[ForgedinHell]

there are multiple definitions of socialism

throwing 'socialist' around as an epithet is about as informative as going around saying 'grrr me no like'

as i understand it - as explained by my math teacher - there are several definitions

there is the soviet version - which regarded socialism as a system where means of production are own by the state - or by the people in theory - but total economic equality has not yet been achieved

there is west european and canadian version - also known as social democracy - which allows lots of capitalist activities but taxes them and redistributes the wealth

there is the cuban version which regards socialism and communism as synonyms and defines them as whatever it is that they have in cuba - most americans who call themselves socialists or communists are - according to my math teacher - retarded and use socialism and communism in that way

your definition does not correspond to any common - or even rare - uses of the word by is unique to you

your definition is thus worthless

my math teacher was born and grew up in the soviet union before it fell apart so presumably he knows what he is talking about

My definition actually does get to the essence. I'll prove it. Your first definition was that "the means of production are owned by the state, or the people." Okay, well, then think about that definition, and what it means. It means if you owned a business, or stock shares in a business, before going to bed one night, that the next morning, you wake up and you are no longer the owner. Somehow, others now own your business, but you never agreed to this, they never paid anything for the property, it is just theirs. The vast majority of people will not agree to having their property taken away from them, so the transfer of property to the mysterious state or "the people" must involve force to steal from the current owners. Then, if everyone owns the business, wouldn't we need to ask everyone what to do everytime a business decision needs to be made? And the likelihood of that happening is zero, because nothing would get done. So, who ends up making decisions? A small group of party leaders and their favorite henchpersons. And why do they make decisions? It has to be because what people would do on their own is something different from what they want to see happen. Therefore, your first definition uses force to steal property and to order people about.

Do you think any of the other definitions you gave for socialism avoid the problems outlined for the first definition?

[Kayla]

i am waiting for the proof

note that gibberish does not constitute proof

[MGL]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

You left the most important part of the defintion out.

SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM...OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE FINITE RESOURCES OF PRODUCTION AND THEREBY TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE RESOURCES AS WELL.

[Alchemyst]

I didn't used to call myself a socialist, then one day I came across the stats for the distribution of wealth in the UK:

Top 01% own 21% of total UK wealth
Top 05% own 40% of total UK wealth
Top 10% own 53% of total UK wealth
Top 25% own 72% of total UK wealth
Top 50% own 93% of total UK wealth

Is half the population so inept or lazy that they can only manage to claim 7% of the wealth?

[ForgedinHell]

i am waiting for the proof

note that gibberish does not constitute proof

Your writing is gibberish. I just explained that this so-called "community ownership" cannot take place without theft occurring from the current owners, which, in itself is rule through force. Second, that decisions on how to use property cannot be made by an entire community, but, in the end, must be made by a small handful of political elites. Those people willl tell others how to live. And it must be the case that they are telling people to do what they don't want to do; otherwise, they would not be needed, would they? The socialist wants to alter free-behavior. Now, how can you get people to do what they do not want to do other than through the use of force?

Each definition you gave for socialism requires the use of force that I have described above. If you are too stupid to grasp something so simple, that makes your thinking gibberish, not my words.

[ForgedinHell]

I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

You left the most important part of the defintion out.

SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM...OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTROL TOO MUCH OF THE FINITE RESOURCES OF PRODUCTION AND THEREBY TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE RESOURCES AS WELL.

You are living in a world of make-believe, which is where most socialists live. They can't handle reality. Your statement was self-refuting. If resources are limited, then they cannot be universally distributed to everyone, can they? To give food to one person, means another does not get that food. Socialism cannot change that fact of reality. Capitalism allows people the freedom to decide how the resources will be divided, while the socialist believes that she or he knows better than anyone else how resources shall be divided. The poblem the socialist has is that the socialist has no rational basis for making the decision. The free-market has a price mechanism that helps to efficiently divide resources. The socialist has no such mechanism, and just issues arbitrary commands. Like telling people that apartments must be provided and the rent can't be more thn $200.00 a month. If the market-clearing rent is $500.l00 per month, this command just creates a shortage for apartments. Demand increases, without any incentive for anyone to povide additional apartments. So what happens? A black-market develops where people offer apartments at more than $200 per month rent, and people willingly pay the rent. However, now this free-exchange is considered a criminal act by the state.

[ForgedinHell]

I didn't used to call myself a socialist, then one day I came across the stats for the distribution of wealth in the UK:

Top 01% own 21% of total UK wealth
Top 05% own 40% of total UK wealth
Top 10% own 53% of total UK wealth
Top 25% own 72% of total UK wealth
Top 50% own 93% of total UK wealth

Is half the population so inept or lazy that they can only manage to claim 7% of the wealth?

So? First of all, I'm willing to bet that over time, some of the people who are in the lower ranks will rise to the higher ranks. I wouldn't expect a 19 year-old college student to have a lot of wealth, however, once she graduates and starts working, she may become quite wealthy.

Furthermore, why should wealth inequality disturb you, unless you are just envious? Does a rich person cause you any harm? No. The wealthy person who just stands there causes you no harm; yet, what do you want us to do? Use government force to steal her wealth?

The Rolling Stones are quite wealthy, but did they force anyone to buy their music or their concert tickets? No. Did they earn their wealth? Yes. Did they steal money from anyone? No. They actually created the wealth by creating their music and playing their music. They made people better off, and people voluntarily paid them for their work. So, since they earned their money justly, it would be an injustice to steal their money. Wealth inequality is a non-issue.

The fact is that living standards have been rising over the years with capitalism, and would be even higher for the average person if socialist policies were not holding us back. The average American, for example, lives a lifetoday better than the wealthiest person in the 1850s did. Not even a close comparison.

[Alchemyst]

There's not much social mobility in Britain now (although that is partly due to bad government). I don't envy the rich, I just feel somewhat sorry on behalf of those whose potential goes unrealised because they can't afford a good education, the best equipment, regular transport, etc. and for those whose essential contributions to an industry are not properly rewarded due to their disadvantageous bargaining positions.

The idea that the free market rewards hard work is only partially true. It is much more the case that work is rewarded when it is combined with either talent (the Beatles) or social connections (Paris Hilton) or both (Jane Fonda). Talent and connections are both forms of luck and it is this luck which the free market mostly rewards; as hard as Jack the Janitor might work he's never going to make it into a league of top earners. A socialist approach, one way or another, tries to even out the proceeds of this luck to some degree which fate distributes so unevenly in the first place. Only extreme forms of socialism do not recognise the value of the profit motive which encourages people to exercise their talents - for the moderate socialist it's a matter of striking a practical balance between economic dynamism and equality.

[ForgedinHell]

There's not much social mobility in Britain now (although that is partly due to bad government). I don't envy the rich, I just feel somewhat sorry on behalf of those whose potential goes unrealised because they can't afford a good education, the best equipment, regular transport, etc. and for those whose essential contributions to an industry are not properly rewarded due to their disadvantageous bargaining positions.

The idea that the free market rewards hard work is only partially true. It is much more the case that work is rewarded when it is combined with either talent (the Beatles) or social connections (Paris Hilton) or both (Jane Fonda). Talent and connections are both forms of luck and it is this luck which the free market mostly rewards; as hard as Jack the Janitor might work he's never going to make it into a league of top earners. A socialist approach, one way or another, tries to even out the proceeds of this luck to some degree which fate distributes so unevenly in the first place. Only extreme forms of socialism do not recognise the value of the profit motive which encourages people to exercise their talents - for the moderate socialist it's a matter of striking a practical balance between economic dynamism and equality.

Prove that it is "luck which the free market mostly rewards." What's your evidence?
And, besides some arbitrary opinions of some elitist government officials, what is the standard that they use to "even things out"?
And what standard do you use for a "practical balance between economic dynamism and equality"? Besides using someone's arbitrary opinion, that is.