Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In time you may learn that life compels people to labor at unpleasant things, socialist or not.
Under the current economic system, the need for money forces people to work, for the most part. Subsistence farming has gone out of style, it would appear.
As to freedom of choice in one's vocation, that is irrelevant. One's natural talents rarely coincide with one's proclivities. More often than not, we wish to do or be that which we are wholly unsuited for. The collective simplifies that problem by examining its needs versus the abilities of the newly contracted workers. Aptitude and need are determined BEFORE the investment in education and training.
And in this case, being voluntary, eases the sting. You can always sever the ties and lose access to all the collective benefits.
FWIW - Absolute ownership by individuals (private property) and collective ownership by the state cannot co-exist. However, qualified ownership is possible within the collective state.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
And in time you may learn that a "well functioning" 100% socialist society, would not even be possible for 100's of years. Look at the USA and former USSR. We led better lives than them, and we had better technology.
But in our 100% capitalist society,
We work 40 hours a week (when we could work 20.)
We are destroying this planets atmosphere and ecosystems (and we could stop it.)
ex.ex.ex. x 1,000.
We are also discontented from the full human potential (by allowing money to lead us rather than science.)
We are disconnected from our children (by our constant time spent working and worrying.)
And we are disconnected from nature and total awareness of our surroundings (by our uncaring concrete jungles.)
And we made this trade so we can work our butts off 40 hours a week, and run around like a bunch of rats in a cage, chasing money more than anything.
I appreciate the time you spent responding to my post, and I believe we have many differences. But like I said in my first post "for anyone to be a 100% capitalist in the year 2013 is stupid."
Chad.
And to any republican who may have read this, I despise dictators and kings (and I want 100% freedom.)
The whole question is flawed because it assumes that anyone that wants some form of a socialistic program automatically wants to have this socialist utopia you've imagined up. That is not the case. It's about balance. Balance is key in anything and having a balance of socialism and capitalism is quite healthy. Having anything in its extreme just isn't good for society.
The whole question is flawed because it assumes that anyone that wants some form of a socialistic program automatically wants to have this socialist utopia you've imagined up. That is not the case. It's about balance. Balance is key in anything and having a balance of socialism and capitalism is quite healthy. Having anything in its extreme just isn't good for society.
No implication that the socialist framework was the only one or that it was a utopia. It was just a brief exposition on the common sense consequences of collective ownership of people, their labor and their property.
In terms of ownership, you will understand why there is no such thing as a "balance of socialism and capitalism."
...
Socialism = collective ownership, or at the least, qualified ownership as a privilege granted by government.
Capitalism = individual and absolute ownership, a right secured by government.
Either government recognizes that the individual has a RIGHT to own, or it asserts that the individual only has the PRIVILEGE to own.
...
As to the notion that certain things should be held in common, like public roads and waterways, that still leaves us with the problem : "who decides?"
In the Declaration of Independence, job #1 = secure rights, and job #2 = govern those who consent.
Absent consent, all government is empowered to do to / for the individual is help secure rights - as in prosecuting harmful actions after the fact.
Personally, I think it would not be wise to use the institution of government with all its flaws to operate or control the public access infrastructure. A non-governmental agency or authority would make more sense.
Sounds like Communism to me..
However if given a choice of having a normal life where all needs are met or going it alone in the hopes i may become rich i think i'd stick with the sure bet that you call Ultimate socialism..
That's because it is communism...it sounded alright for a little bit then went off the deep end. LOL..shocker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
