What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[Darkness]

If the military was Socialist than all basic programs would be Socialist (school, fire, police, roads, etc). Plus, don't all (civilized) countries have a military?

Yes. Our police force is socialist, in the sense that they are employed by the public.

The options are not "socialist" or "democratic" are they?

"Socialism" is usually a reference to economics and refers to a manner in which resources are shared. What do you mean when you use that term?

"Democratic" by contrast is usually a term that refers to the legitmizing system for political power - where the people vote on the actions of the government, or in the case of a democratic republic, vote for purported representatives who then vote on the actions of the government.

So in usual parlance, "socialist" and "democratic" are not mutually exclusive. You can have things that are both socialist (resources and risks are shared for the mutual benefit of all) and democratic (how they are used is determined by some popular vote of the people).

Usually, the opposite of "socialist" is "capitalist" with every economy in the world falling someplace along a spectrum between the two. And the opposite of "democratic" is "autocratic" (which in turn can take several forms including "dictatorships," "military juntas," "absolute monarchies," etc.).

Since the U.S. military is funded through mutual contributions and operates ostensibly for the defense of the people generally, it is a "socialist" institution in the economic sense. The process by which decisions are made about how the military is used is determined under the rules of a "democratic" republic.

That settles it. Now, can we stop pretending that the military isn't socialist because it works, becuase it just kills JustBeHappy to admit that socialist programs can work? There is another option. We can privatise the military, but we don't and won't do that because even libertarians know that there are some things that shouldn't be decided by the market.

 

[Magic Man]

The Military predate Socialist Ideas by Millennia.

The earliest military would have been tribal collectives. Money was not involved, it was resourced by the individuals.

Later Warlords and Kings Created armies, both volunteers and conscripted. these again worked on collective principals, from groups of vassals.

Armies have always been collectives with common interests even when augmented with hired mercenaries.

Politically they may be of any political persuasion.

I don't think the claim is that socialists came up with armies, but it is a socialist idea.

 

[justbehappy]

And yet all of those social programs affect most of the people, as I said.

Please explain

First, yes, it can. Second, even if you don't use the service directly, it's still helpful to you, just as insurance is.

So does the government have the right to make us pay for anything that'ss beneficial then?

Your explanation.

Not specific

Yes, it is.

You just admitted above that we don't use it directly, so how is it a direct benefit then?

 

[justbehappy]

This is very simple. A military is a socialist idea. Many governments use it, but it's still socialist in nature. If it fits the definition of a socialist idea, then it's a socialist idea.

I could just as easily say - if it fits under the definition of a democratic system of government, then it's a democratic idea. Like I said, I think the only way you could it Socialistic here is if it didn't apply to our government. Here, applying to our government, it is democratic.

I find it especially funny that you, of all people, want to deny this, since you accuse liberals of becoming more socialist and wanting more socialist policies.

Ah, maybe I'm not as bias as you chose to believe

 

[justbehappy]

The options are not "socialist" or "democratic" are they?

No, they are not. The option is whichever system the country uses - if it fits into that system.

"Democratic" by contrast is usually a term that refers to the legitmizing system for political power - where the people vote on the actions of the government, or in the case of a democratic republic, vote for purported representatives who then vote on the actions of the government.

The people want it. The only reason it was never voted on is because it was already set in place before the Constitution was written. If it were voted on today, though, as to whether to abolish it or not, do you honestly think we would?

So in usual parlance, "socialist" and "democratic" are not mutually exclusive. You can have things that are both socialist (resources and risks are shared for the mutual benefit of all) and democratic (how they are used is determined by some popular vote of the people).

Of course. I'm not denying that it fits with Socialistic policies. But how do you decide which one it is? You decide it by what your government system is, and like I said - if it fits into that system.

Since the U.S. military is funded through mutual contributions and operates ostensibly for the defense of the people generally, it is a "socialist" institution in the economic sense. The process by which decisions are made about how the military is used is determined under the rules of a "democratic" republic.[/quote]
I could agree with that. But I wouldn't think it makes it any more Socialistic than Democratic under that way of thinking.

 

[doppelganger]

There is another option. We can privatise the military, but we don't and won't do that because even libertarians know that there are some things that shouldn't be decided by the market.

Worked for Julius Caesar (not so much for the Roman Republic though).

 

[justbehappy]

Yes. Our police force is socialist, in the sense that they are employed by the public.



That settles it. Now, can we stop pretending that the military isn't socialist because it works, becuase it just kills JustBeHappy to admit that socialist programs can work? There is another option. We can privatise the military, but we don't and won't do that because even libertarians know that there are some things that shouldn't be decided by the market.

The military is an absolute necessity for civilized countries no matter what type of government you have. Without a military, there would no government period.

 

[doppelganger]

No, they are not. The option is whichever system the country uses - if it fits into that system.

? I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?

The people want it. The only reason it was never voted on is because it was already set in place before the Constitution was written. If it were voted on today, though, as to whether to abolish it or not, do you honestly think we would?

That's not a response to what I wrote. I can't even fathom how you think that it is . . .

I could agree with that. But I wouldn't think it makes it any more Socialistic than Democratic under that way of thinking.

Except that "Socialistic" (economics) and "Democratic" (politics) are not juxtaposed as the two competing options because they relate to completely different things. When you say "Socialist" do you really mean something like what is meant by "dictatorship"? Or when you say "Democratic" do you really mean something like "free enterprise capitalism"?

Just trying to understand why you think socialist economics and democratic politics are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[justbehappy]

I don't think the claim is that socialists came up with armies, but it is a socialist idea.

It's like telling a father that he looks just like his son (rather then telling the son he looks like his father). It makes no sense if the father is older. Military cannot be Sociaist, only Socialism can include military.

 

[justbehappy]

? I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?

To me, to chose which one it is if it falls under many, you would pick the government that it is a part of. The only exception to this would be if it was not allowed by the government you're in.

Except that "Socialistic" (economics) and "Democratic" (politics) are not juxtaposed as the two competing options because they relate to completely different things. When you say "Socialist" do you really mean something like what is meant by "dictatorship"? Or when you say "Democratic" do you really mean something like "free enterprise capitalism"?

Just trying to understand why you think socialist economics and democratic politics are somehow mutually exclusive.

They arn't. But with your way of thinking, it wouldn't be any more Socialistic than it would Democratic, and vise versa.

 

[Magic Man]

Please explain

What do I need to explain?

So does the government have the right to make us pay for anything that'ss beneficial then?

The government is us. As a society we should have taxes that pay for things that benefit society.

Not specific

I thought it was.

You just admitted above that we don't use it directly, so how is it a direct benefit then?

Because you still benefit from the program.

 

[Magic Man]

I could just as easily say - if it fits under the definition of a democratic system of government, then it's a democratic idea.

Is it in the definition of a democratic government? Is the idea of publicly funded organization an inherent part of a democracy? Or is it just used by a democracy, but has nothing to do directly with democracy?

Like I said, I think the only way you could it Socialistic here is if it didn't apply to our government. Here, applying to our government, it is democratic.

That just makes no sense.

Ah, maybe I'm not as bias as you chose to believe

I think you missed my point. You accuse liberals of adopting socialist ideas, but then when a socialist idea is brought up, you claim it can't be labeled a socialist idea. So, how is it that a military can't be considered a socialist idea, but a national health service can?

 

[Magic Man]

It's like telling a father that he looks just like his son (rather then telling the son he looks like his father). It makes no sense if the father is older. Military cannot be Sociaist, only Socialism can include military.

Let's try a different way to get this through. A socialist policy is one that involves an organization or means of production being owned by the public, not privately. The military is an organization that is owned by the public. Therefore it is socialist by definition.

 

[Aquitaine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since we're on the topic of the US Military, doesn't it have it's own Socialist Healthcare system specifically for US service personell?

So then, isn't that another testimont that Socialist programs can work - even massive ones like the US military?

 

[justbehappy]

Is it in the definition of a democratic government? Is the idea of publicly funded organization an inherent part of a democracy? Or is it just used by a democracy, but has nothing to do directly with democracy?

A lot of things can be used by a democracy if the people want it. And if it is used in a democratic government, it is democratic. If it is used in a Socialist country, it is Socialist.

I think you missed my point. You accuse liberals of adopting socialist ideas, but then when a socialist idea is brought up, you claim it can't be labeled a socialist idea. So, how is it that a military can't be considered a socialist idea, but a national health service can?

Everyone's biased except you, huh? If we don't agree with you than we must be biased because there's no way an intelligent person could have a different view.
Because military falls under our democratic government.
First of all, the healthcare bill was disapproved of when it was passed, which isn't democratic.
Secondly, I would be okay with it if there was an option to opt out of paying for it and receiving the benefits of it. Therefore, people only pay taxes to it if they wish to benefit from it. The same I feel should be done for Social Security.
It is fine in the fact that it provides for all (at least I think it's supposed to?) but people should still have the choice whether they'd like to buy healthcare themselves or not. And I believe it was part of the bill that people could still get their own insurance - but they'd still have to pay taxes for healthcare. That's pretty much forcing us to chose universinal healthcare over insurance because the normal family couldn't afford both. Give us the choice and I would gladly compromise.

 

[justbehappy]

Let's try a different way to get this through. A socialist policy is one that involves an organization or means of production being owned by the public, not privately. The military is an organization that is owned by the public. Therefore it is socialist by definition.

I wasn't saying just because it is older it doesn't fit it - but because it is older, it can apply to any government that allows it

 

[Magic Man]

A lot of things can be used by a democracy if the people want it. And if it is used in a democratic government, it is democratic. If it is used in a Socialist country, it is Socialist.

It would be better if you'd just answer the questions. As it is, it seems you even missed the point of them. The military as we have it now is by definition socialist. It is not by definition democratic. It is not in the definition of democracy, but it is in the definition of socialism.

Everyone's biased except you, huh? If we don't agree with you than we must be biased because there's no way an intelligent person could have a different view.

Huh? What does this have to do with the comment it was responding to? This is not a case where there are multiple correct views.

You yourself have talked about a socialist policy like a national health service. So, in your view, some policies can be labeled socialist because they're socialist policies, regardless of the government that uses them, but others, like the military, can't be labeled socialist because it all depends on the government that uses them. I'd just like some consistency please.

Because military falls under our democratic government.

And? The NHS falls under the UK's democratic government, too, but it's still a socialist policy.

First of all, the healthcare bill was disapproved of when it was passed, which
isn't democratic.

It's still democratic.

Secondly, I would be okay with it if there was an option to opt out of paying for it and receiving the benefits of it. Therefore, people only pay taxes to it if they wish to benefit from it. The same I feel should be done for Social Security.
It is fine in the fact that it provides for all (at least I think it's supposed to?) but people should still have the choice whether they'd like to buy healthcare themselves or not. And I believe it was part of the bill that people could still get their own insurance - but they'd still have to pay taxes for healthcare. That's pretty much forcing us to chose universinal healthcare over insurance because the normal family couldn't afford both. Give us the choice and I would gladly compromise.

Is it really that hard for you to stay on one topic? I'm not going into the whole healthcare thing here, and I don't feel like explaining all the things wrong with your thinking here.

What I was saying is that you consider the NHS to be a socialist policy, even though it' used by a democracy. Yet you don't want to consider a military to be socialist even though it's socialist for the same reason a national health service is.

 

[Magic Man]

I wasn't saying just because it is older it doesn't fit it - but because it is older, it can apply to any government that allows it

No, because it's not inherently part of that government. It's inherently socialist in nature. No matter what government uses it, it's still based on principles that we label socialist.

 

[Darkness]

The military is an absolute necessity for civilized countries no matter what type of government you have. Without a military, there would no government period.

You have a bad habit of not reading what people wrote. I never said anything about abolishing the military. What I said is that it could be privatised.

Let me ask you one question. Universal health care systems are almost ubiquitous in civilised societies. By your logic, doesn't it follow then that universal health care provided by the Government is non-socialist as well?

Worked for Julius Caesar (not so much for the Roman Republic though).

War Inc. is the best fictional example of a privatised military.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The ridiculous Idea that an army is socialist. can be explained by reading this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/101698-bad-news-democracy.html