Cry of the Sheeple

[Alceste]

* butchered beyond recognitionin order to completely eviscerate the post of meaning*

Yes, this cogently addresses the issue.

~ said the man who only one single post ago was bitterly whining that I didn't specifically address a particular word that was in his comment.

 

[Meow Mix]

No. You should read carefully read the entire post.

I'm having trouble following too, though I'm just a political layperson. Can you elucidate, maybe with some real examples, precisely what it is to be socialist and exactly why the snarky counterexamples (which looked like legitimate objections to me) miss the mark?

 

[Alceste]

No. You should read carefully read the entire post.

I did. You never bother to answer any of my questions or debate any of the points I raise, then you insist I keep reading your posts over and over again. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Perhaps there is something wrong with your philosophy, since you are unable to defend it against simple, obvious challenges.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course, I didn't call the items in your minimal list "socialistic". Rather, I refer to a larger governmental agenda which only includes increasing taxes.
(Note that your list doesn't address other things which affect tax collection & actual rates, eg deductions, income classification, bracket creep.)

You made the socialism charge. I asked how is Obama socialistic. Instead providing any specifics you want me to cover all the specifics. You're shirking your burden of evidence and putting an unreasonable burden on me.

But certainly, if a prez increases government spending & tax revenue (per citizen & adjusted for inflation), that would point in a socialistic direction.
If he reduces both, then this points away from socialism. Thus, I also consider GW Bush socialistic...no less so than Obama.

Normally I wouldn't challenge semantics like this. The problem I have, Revoltingest, is that the semantics you and many others in this country have chosen are counter-productive to fruitful discussion. Everyone--even you--believes there is such a thing as lowering taxes and regulations too much. And certainly we all believe taxes and regulation can be increased too much. So the real debate is an optimization problem. The way you frame the issue (capitalist direction vs. socialist direction) makes it difficult to discuss this optimization problem and instead turns it into a conflict between opposing religions, which can't be resolved by calm reasoning and compromise. The way you frame it, any movement in any direction is a slippery-slope towards either unregulated capitalism or absolute socialism. This gives the impression that we are constantly teetering on the peak between one way of life, and a completely different way of life. This fuels the unreasonable hysteria about the election and the abhorrence of small changes in policy that we have been seeing.

 

[Revoltingest]

You made the socialism charge. I asked how is Obama socialistic. Instead providing any specifics you want me to cover all the specifics. You're shirking your burden of evidence and putting an unreasonable burden on me.

When it comes to shirking, I am gifted. Moreover, I am a renaissance man, able to shirk in many diverse fields.
I consider Obama to be socialistic because he seeks to expand government, raise taxes, & increase regulation.
I do not consider Obama to be socialist, however.

Normally I wouldn't challenge semantics like this. The problem I have, Revoltingest, is that the semantics you and many others in this country have chosen are counter-productive to fruitful discussion.

Hold on there, buster....don't lump me in with those who use "socialist" as an insult, & who aren't clear in any novel definitions they might use.
(If you persist, I'll have to lump you in with lefties like Rosanne, Madonna & MSNBC. Ugh....let's not go there.) Frankly, I don't consider socialism
to be evil or the term to be insulting. I oppose it, & some people favor it. I don't say it's right or wrong. I say the same of capitalism.

Everyone--even you--believes there is such a thing as lowering taxes and regulations too much. And certainly we all believe taxes and regulation can be increased too much. So the real debate is an optimization problem. The way you frame the issue (capitalist direction vs. socialist direction) makes it difficult to discuss this optimization problem and instead turns it into a conflict between opposing religions, which can't be resolved by calm reasoning and compromise. This fuels the unreasonable hysteria about the election we have been seeing.

Perhaps you read too conflict & rancor into the way I see socialism.
This is understandable in these highly charged times.
But I raise questions which I see paid too little attention....should we become less or more socialistic?
Which policies are independent of socialism, & which directly affect our march towards or away from it?
Let's try to make "socialism" just an ordinary word which we may use to clarify concepts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well then Obama is socialistic compared to Bush, capitalistic compared to Reagan.

I don't think it's fruitful to ask should we be more or less socialistic. I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we should end the Bush tax cuts, cut entitlements, etc. This cuts through a lot of ideological mumbo-jumbo and gets to the heart of the matter. Raising revenues is not a "march" towards raising even more revenues, that's the slippery-slope fallacy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well then Obama is socialistic compared to Bush, capitalistic compared to Reagan.

I'd say it's the other way around. But I won't quibble, since you understand what this perspective is.
Reasonable people will disagree.

I don't think it's fruitful to ask should we be more or less socialistic. I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we should end the Bush tax cuts, cut entitlements, etc. This cuts through a lot of ideological mumbo-jumbo and gets to the heart of the matter. Raising revenues is not a "march" towards raising even more revenues, that's the slippery-slope fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply when I'm not using it to make any kind of argument.
(Geeze....people need training for deciding when to invoke informal logical fallacies.)
I argue only that it's worth looking at trends, in order to see a larger picture & plan for the future.
It's a temporal analog to the geographically oriented phrase "Think globally. Act locally."

 

[Adramelek]

Most other places around the world you'd be having your surgery and up and about after recovery and then back to work.

That's the way it has always worked for me here in the US without the AHCA. Over the years I've had two major surgeries, and under the health insurance provided by the companies I've worked for I've always gotten the exact same results. For instance, when I had my thyroid surgery (they thought I might have thyroid cancer, but it turned out to be benign), I was back to work two weeks later, and I was payed for time off. Of course, I know it is a different story for a lot of others, but private health care insurance has always worked out just fine for me.

/Adramelek\

 

[Revoltingest]

~ said the man who only one single post ago was bitterly whining that I didn't specifically address a particular word that was in his comment.

The problem is that we don't converse. You merely pick at plucked portions of posts, & miss my meaning
But worry not....I'm not bitter, since this is all I expect of you. Often I'm too "men" to even bother responding.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm having trouble following too, though I'm just a political layperson. Can you elucidate, maybe with some real examples, precisely what it is to be socialist and exactly why the snarky counterexamples (which looked like legitimate objections to me) miss the mark?

Thanx for the gentlemanly (gentlegally?) invitation.
First let's make a distinction again between some definitions I use:
Socialism - Government owns the means of production.
Socialistic - Something which pertains to socialism or advances towards it.
Ref: What does the suffix istic mean
They don't mean the same thing. I use "socialistic" to mean heading in a direction of socialism, but not necessarily even aiming to achieve socialism.

To avoid getting bogged down in addressing every possible way in which we might move in the direction of socialism, let's go back to a narrower issue in #113....

- Regarding "ownership of the means of production", the word "ownership" requires some elaboration. Consider how it's used in real estate. To "own"
property is to have what is called a "bundle of rights". Let's say that you have 100 rights to use your property, eg, to farm, to hunt, to build, to mine.
If government takes away 1 right.....let's say the right to build because of zoning....or the right to farm because of wetlands regulation, this reduces
the number of rights in your "bundle", which is effectivelya reduction of ownership. Even though government hasn't taken the property in the conventional
sense of condemnation & taking title, it is nevertheless a taking. Courts have even awarded compensation to owners in cases of a taking of great economic
value. Now, back to the bundle of rights concept....the more rights taken by government, the more this scenario heads in the direction of functional
ownership by government. I emphasize that this is not full ownership...just movement in that direction.

Let's hypothesize that every couple of years, government takes away one more right associated with property rights. Since this is motion in
the direction of socialism, I'd call this larger trend "socialistic". (Note: It is not to say that any particular loss of rights is itself socialistic.)
Specific example: If government enacts a law which requires that you cannot remove any tree with a trunk larger than 4" diameter without a permit
& payment of a fee (increasing with diameter), this would be socialistic. (We dang near had this law in Ann Arbor. Similar laws were passed locally.)
By itself, this wouldn't portend much. But looking at a larger picture of the whole tax & regulatory environment, the question becomes.....is there
an observable trend in the direction of socialism?

Reminder to others: I'm not presenting an argument against socialism or socialistic policies here. This is just my perspective on trends I see.
(I don't find it interesting to argue about whether socialism or capitalism is better or more moral.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's the way it has always worked for me here in the US without the AHCA. Over the years I've had two major surgeries, and under the health insurance provided by the companies I've worked for I've always gotten the exact same results. For instance, when I had my thyroid surgery (they thought I might have thyroid cancer, but it turned out to be benign), I was back to work two weeks later, and I was payed for time off. Of course, I know it is a different story for a lot of others, but private health care insurance has always worked out just fine for me.

/Adramelek\

But no one said anything about private insurance not being there. As far as the US it's there.....It's just they can't deny for preexisting conditions and the cap has been removed. Your situation may be different but for millions of others the ACA is a benefit even to many insurance companies.....Hospitals, Insurance Companies, Pharmas: Who Benefits From the Affordable Care Act? - DiversityInc

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The results of the 2012 election can be summed up in one sentence which I call the "Cry of the Sheeple":

"I ask not what I can do for my country, I ask what my countries government can do for me?!"

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
The Eternal Libertarian

That's deep. Your own? I take it you aren't thrilled with the results.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply when I'm not using it to make any kind of argument.
(Geeze....people need training for deciding when to invoke informal logical fallacies.)
I argue only that it's worth looking at trends, in order to see a larger picture & plan for the future.
It's a temporal analog to the geographically oriented phrase "Think globally. Act locally."

We'll have to disagree on whether you are using the slippery-slope fallacy when you equate any increase in taxes or regulation to a "march" towards socialism, i.e. govt. ownership of the means of production. In any case your usage of "socialism" is unhelpful and contributes to such fallacious reasoning. Case in point, post #88:

Geeze Louise.....I leave town (& internet access) for a couple days, & come back to find that you Americanistanians have
voted in another in a long line of murderous bumbling socialists to run your country! I just cannot leave you guys unsupervised.

Now we've come full circle, this was the post that ignited our side-debate. It's okay to joke around, but when challenged you doubled-down on your usage of "socialists". And I'm saying this empty rhetoric contributes to the exaggerated reactions we are seeing to the election, in such places as the OP of this very thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's hypothesize that every couple of years, government takes away one more right associated with property rights. Since this is motion in
the direction of socialism, I'd call this larger trend "socialistic". (Note: It is not to say that any particular loss of rights is itself socialistic.)
Specific example: If government enacts a law which requires that you cannot remove any tree with a trunk larger than 4" diameter without a permit
& payment of a fee (increasing with diameter), this would be socialistic. (We dang near had this law in Ann Arbor. Similar laws were passed locally.)
By itself, this wouldn't portend much. But looking at a larger picture of the whole tax & regulatory environment, the question becomes.....is there
an observable trend in the direction of socialism?

Reminder to others: I'm not presenting an argument against socialism or socialistic policies here. This is just my perspective on trends I see.
(I don't find it interesting to argue about whether socialism or capitalism is better or more moral.)

The problem is when we compare the trends you claim to see with the actual facts, the two don't square up so well.

 

[Revoltingest]

We'll have to disagree on whether you are using the slippery-slope fallacy when you equate any increase in taxes or regulation to a "march" towards socialism.....

To say "any increase in taxes or regulation" is an overly extreme inference.
I'm talking about a larger trend resulting from tax & regulatory increases, & to some extent about the type of each.

....i.e. govt. ownership of the means of production. In any case your usage of "socialism" is unhelpful and contributes to such fallacious reasoning. Case in point, post #88:
Now we've come full circle, this was the post that ignited our side-debate. It's okay to joke around, but when challenged you doubled-down on your usage of "socialists". And I'm saying this empty rhetoric contributes to the exaggerated reactions we are seeing to the election, in such places as the OP of this very thread.

Perhaps you're overly sensitive to the word "socialism".
It should not be thought of as a dirty word.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

To say "any increase in taxes or regulation" is an overly extreme inference.
I'm talking about a larger trend resulting from tax & regulatory increases, & to some extent about the type of each.

Right you're talking about any overall increase in taxes and regulation. I get it. But that's not a "march" it's an adjustment.

Perhaps you're overly sensitive to the word "socialism".
It should not be thought of as a dirty word.

It's not the word that's the problem it's your portrayal of reality. The election was a choice between two candidates operating under the same framework -- whether you call it socialism, capitalism, or whatever you want.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's the way it has always worked for me here in the US without the AHCA. Over the years I've had two major surgeries, and under the health insurance provided by the companies I've worked for I've always gotten the exact same results. For instance, when I had my thyroid surgery (they thought I might have thyroid cancer, but it turned out to be benign), I was back to work two weeks later, and I was payed for time off. Of course, I know it is a different story for a lot of others, but private health care insurance has always worked out just fine for me.

/Adramelek\

So, you recognize it doesn't always work out for people ("I know it is a different story for a lot of others") yet you defend it anyway? Or did I miss something?

As long as you're doing okay, right?

 

[Alceste]

The problem is that we don't converse. You merely pick at plucked portions of posts, & miss my meaning
But worry not....I'm not bitter, since this is all I expect of you. Often I'm too "men" to even bother responding.

Me too, but is it not too much to ask that you answer a simple question? You are arguing taxes and regulations are "socialist... ic". It is a fact that every government in history has funded its operations and infrastructure through taxation and made pronouncements on what private citizens can or can't do. Therefore, do you conclude that every government in the history of civilization is / was "socialist... ic" by your definition?

 

[Revoltingest]

Right you're talking about any overall increase in taxes and regulation. I get it. But that's not a "march" it's an adjustment.

Exactly! I use the word "socialistic" to describe an agenda continuing adjustment in the direction of socialism.

It's not the word that's the problem it's your portrayal of reality. The election was a choice between two candidates operating under the same framework -- whether you call it socialism, capitalism, or whatever you want.

Reality? I'm not portraying that at all.
I'm just explaining how I see it.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly! I use the word "socialistic" to describe an agenda continuing adjustment in the direction of socialism.


Reality? I'm not portraying that at all.
I'm just explaining how I see it.

Can you name a single industry that the government nationalized under Obama? By "nationalized" I mean "took possession of and turned into a public corporation" a la Chavez and Venezuela's oil, not "handed a lot of taxpayer money to and left in private hands".