| |
 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » USA (Constitution) Politics Forum » Informal Poll: what is the opposite of Socialism?... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Franks... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:59:20 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism?
Whatever it is is found ONLY in a dictionary. I can not think of any -ism
which can have a pure direct opposite in practice, as opposed to
dictionary definition.
If socialism is a economic collective which is public, where would a
collective that is private be placed? Opposite or not so much? If both
'collective' and 'public' were to be countered then 'private' and 'single
ownership', which would be weakened even by a family ownership, might be
the opposite. A system of single proprietorship's.
Certainly if a public government is to remain separate from any private
ownership system, this private system can not have government as part of
it's customer base or have tax/public money as income. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Strickland... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ZerkonXXXX" <Z at (no spam) erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.02.11.51.32 at (no spam) erkonx.net...
Quote: On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:59:20 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism?
Whatever it is is found ONLY in a dictionary. I can not think of any -ism
which can have a pure direct opposite in practice, as opposed to
dictionary definition.
If socialism is a economic collective which is public, where would a
collective that is private be placed? Opposite or not so much? If both
'collective' and 'public' were to be countered then 'private' and 'single
ownership', which would be weakened even by a family ownership, might be
the opposite. A system of single proprietorship's.
Certainly if a public government is to remain separate from any private
ownership system, this private system can not have government as part of
it's customer base or have tax/public money as income.
There is nothing wrong with having the government for a customer. If you are
a construction company, you might want to build something for the
government.
If you are a dentist, you might like having the Army as a customer. There's
nothing wrong with private companies having government entities in its
customer base.
The problem is when the government becomes the provider and insists that
everybody be in its customer base. The problem is the compulsroy nature of
the participation by the public, whether they are on the provider side or
the consumer side of the equation.
When you freely walk into the supermarket and buy a jar of peanut butter,
you are a participant in a free market. They make it, you consume it. If you
don't like peanut butter and prefer Nutella instead, then that's your
choice. Maybe you like balogna & cheese. You volunteer to participate in the
market place and the options to attract your attention are wide and varied.
When the government comes along and says, okay, today everybody is going to
buy peanut butter and the cost will be held low because people that don't
consume peanut butter will subsidize those that do. You can still buy
Nutella or balogna & cheese if the Nutella and balogna & cheese makers still
make it, but you MUST buy a jar of peanut butter. That's a market where you
are a compulsory participant, and because you are forced to buy peanut
butter or pay a fine for not buying it, and your participation subsidizes
others, that's a problem.
If you MAKE peanut butter, you might enjoy such a market place until the
government comes along and says that peanut butter costs too much and they
are gonna take your factor because they can make peanut butter better than
you do. Eventually, the government will be forcing everybody to buy peanut
butter from the government-run dispensories, but there won't be enough
peanuts so lines will form as people wait for the next shipment. At some
point, a black market for peanut butter will develop that competes with the
government. The government will come around and check that you have at least
two jars of peanut butter in the cupboard, but they won't be able to provide
it so you turn to the black market.
Eventually, only the rich will be able to afford high quality peanut butter,
and the masses will be left to consume the crap that the government puts
out. The poor people that received government assistance to buy peanut
butter will find that the assistance has gone by the wayside while the
quality of the peanut butter has gone into the toilet. The people that the
government set about to help will, in the end, not be helped very much and
the rest of us will be harmed. The rich will still get the best peanut
butter available. And, they will be richer and the poor will be poorer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:10:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: The problem is when the government becomes the provider and insists that
everybody be in its customer base.
The government isn't the provider
The medical, health care providers are
The government's involvement is administration related
to pooling, tax/income issues etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
Quote: On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:59:20 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism?
Whatever it is is found ONLY in a dictionary. I can not think of any -ism
which can have a pure direct opposite in practice, as opposed to
dictionary definition.
Just keep it informal. Exact precision isn't necessary, just in
general/gross terms.
Quote: If socialism is a economic collective which is public
I don't see socialism as an economic policy, when it is distilled. I
think there is a lot of misinformation that socialism is economic
policy, though.
Quote: where would a
collective that is private be placed? Opposite or not so much? If both
'collective' and 'public' were to be countered then 'private' and 'single
ownership', which would be weakened even by a family ownership, might be
the opposite. A system of single proprietorship's.
Certainly if a public government is to remain separate from any private
ownership system, this private system can not have government as part of
it's customer base or have tax/public money as income. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0800, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: don't see socialism as an economic policy, when it is distilled. I
think there is a lot of misinformation that socialism is economic
policy, though.
I can hear the ZZZZZAAAAPPPP from your tin-hat from
here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:10:47 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Quote: There is nothing wrong with having the government for a customer. If you
are a construction company, you might want to build something for the
government.
Yes there is unless we have a perfect world.
Too long a history of corruption beginning way before the founding of the
US.
The moment public money is transferred over into private hands, for
whatever reason, those private hands have an economic interest in that
public money. All quite natural and perfectly understandable. Or "the way
the market behaves".
A strategy would naturally be having a politician lawmaker or a person
with the power of tax appropriations to somehow realize gain if the
private hand realizes gain. Graft.
In pure 'private market' terms, this is antithesis. One can not be
private while receiving public money. Can not work for, with or in
government while being at the same time 'free from it'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:10:47 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Quote: The problem is when the government becomes the provider and insists that
everybody be in its customer base.
If this were ever the case, maybe, but it is not.
Government provides tax money to people who then spend this in the
private sector. So, for instance, a doctor, HMO or hospital, getting
medicare dollars are not working for the government even though they are
getting dollars from it. Those tax dollars become part of a private
profit stream. The patient being a sort of middleman, a money launderer.
So the poor patient is part of a creeping socialist system while the
doctors and the rest are a shinning example of how the private
marketplace works.
Mark my words. When this so called health care business is settled it
will closely model the state level mandatory car insurance scheme.
This is not socialism it is private collectivism using the force of
government. Just like what is happening to banks now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Just keep it informal. Exact precision isn't necessary, just in
general/gross terms.
OK, understandable.
Quote:
If socialism is a economic collective which is public
I don't see socialism as an economic policy, when it is distilled. I
think there is a lot of misinformation that socialism is economic
policy, though
Well a trick question then? Maybe you need to define what you mean before
asking about it's opposite. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
Quote: On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0800, Peter Franks wrote:
Just keep it informal. Exact precision isn't necessary, just in
general/gross terms.
OK, understandable.
If socialism is a economic collective which is public
I don't see socialism as an economic policy, when it is distilled. I
think there is a lot of misinformation that socialism is economic
policy, though
Well a trick question then? Maybe you need to define what you mean before
asking about it's opposite.
No, not a trick question, but part of the answer to be sure. I'll
elaborate: I find that one of the fundamental tenets of socialism is
confusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Franks... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism?
I'll posit an answer to my own question:
The opposite of Socialism is Freedom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:48:05 -0800, Peter Franks
<none at (no spam) none.com> wrote:
Quote: The opposite of Socialism is Freedom.
Nonsense
Socialism requires power sharing equally |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:10:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem is when the government becomes the provider and insists that
everybody be in its customer base.
The government isn't the provider
The medical, health care providers are
The government's involvement is administration related
to pooling, tax/income issues etc.
By government or by government control - that's the difference
between Communism and Socialism.
- Medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers, hospitals, clinics,
doctors and nurses are required to be licensed and regulated by
government.
- Insurance companies are controlled by the states in which they
operate.
- Government sponsored Medicare & Medicaid are the largest purchasers
of medical services.
- Pharmaceutical companies are regulated by government.
Does government provide? No. Does government control? Yes.
By government or by government control - that's the difference
between Communism and Socialism. A distinction without
a difference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonXXXX wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:10:47 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
The problem is when the government becomes the provider and insists that
everybody be in its customer base.
If this were ever the case, maybe, but it is not.
Government provides tax money to people who then spend this in the
private sector. So, for instance, a doctor, HMO or hospital, getting
medicare dollars are not working for the government even though they are
getting dollars from it. Those tax dollars become part of a private
profit stream. The patient being a sort of middleman, a money launderer.
So the poor patient is part of a creeping socialist system while the
doctors and the rest are a shinning example of how the private
marketplace works.
Mark my words. When this so called health care business is settled it
will closely model the state level mandatory car insurance scheme.
This is not socialism it is private collectivism using the force of
government. Just like what is happening to banks now.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because
it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini
"If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells
government."
- Mussolini, 1923, "The Doctrine of Fascism" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Quote: Informal Poll:
In your opinion, what is the opposite of Socialism?
For a baseline definition, let's cite an expert.
"We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of
national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and
tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby
protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal
regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact,
outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an
enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian
today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who
does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living
organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism."
"We have created the united state of Italy. Remember that since
the Empire Italy had not been a united state. Here I wish to reaffirm
solemnly our doctrine of the State. Here I wish to reaffirm with no
weaker energy, the formula I expounded at the scala in Milan
everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside
the state."
- Benito Mussolini, speech before the Chamber of Deputies, May 26,
1927, Discorsi del 1927, Milano, Alpes, 1928, p. t57
The opposite? The United States, circa 1780. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:16 pm
|
|