The Road to Serfdom by Frederick Hayek, is a good practical explanation of the flaws in dhaller's presentation, above, which is not the way socialism has ever worked by anybody who actually tried it. Centralized planning, which he disassociates from socialism, in reality becomes a necessity once you get out of socialist-utopia-dreamworld where the lefty dreams something and thinks that makes it happen and move into the real world, with its practical implications and things like incentives and disincentives.That has nothing to do with socialism.
You don't have to "believe" what socialism is, because it's a specific, defined economic theory, specifically in which the community - not private owners or investors - own the "means of production" (basically the supply chain and the overall business infrastructure).
For example, here's what happens with guns in a socialist system:
People say "we need guns", so they decide to build a gun factory. Then they say "does anyone know how to build guns?" and a couple of people say "I do", so they start making guns. Then, the guns are distributed to everyone, who don't need to buy them because they *own the gun factory*. Now you have socialists with guns.
In the modern world, this process tends to need some degree of central management - *someone* has to get the factory built - and so socialist economies are centrally planned. Historically, the trend has been for authoritarian governments to manage centrally-planned economies, although they *could* theoretically be democratic or even anarchic (witness Christian monastic communities, which are bound by common ideology, in this case, religion).
The *problem* with socialism isn't public ownership - I mean, do you hate your neighborhood farmer's market? or your farming co-op? - but rather *central planning*, which by its nature (1) doesn't respond to information in the marketplace and (2) is anti-competitive.
For example, Joe suggests to his community "hey, we need a coffee shop" and everyone says "great idea, Joe!", and so with Joe's guidance, the community builds a little coffee shop with a nice terrace or whatever, and now Joe makes coffee for folks - his fellow owners - who come by for a visit. Nice. But then *Mary* decides *she* wants to run a coffee shop ("mine will have an open mic night!"), but the community says "well, we already have Joe's, Mary... can you do something else?"...
... poor Mary. She just wants to make a great cuppa.
And maybe she decides to open one anyway, and now the secret police are burying her in the woods. Yeah... central planning. Sucks.
Socialism? Eh. Nothing intrinsically evil there. Central planning? That tends to go bad, fast.
Realistically, so-called "mixed economies" are probably the most viable - a discussion for another time - but I really can't think of *anyone* of significance in modern American public discourse who's an actual *socialist*.
DH
Certainly once you have more than about a dozen people, you've run into a "need" for centralized planning.I submit that socialism does not work in the absence of centralized planning. It is inherently defective outside of an authoritarian system.
You think you can force people to be healthy? I don't think that is going to work, especially when the people pushing for socialism are the same people that are anti body shaming, saying fat is healthy etc.... It may work out though, if they achieve their socialist dream we will all probably be standing in bread lines at some point and the unhealthy fat people will either lose weight or die.I believe there *are* certain outcomes which are important enough to merit being "forced", ie. against market forces. Health is one - I just think people need to be healthy, even if market pressure identifies an acceptable segment of the population that can be allowed to become sick and die.
DH
That's also because we give out billions of dollars to other countries. No other nation on earth comes close to the amount of taxpayer money we send overseas. That has got to stop, this does not benefit Americans.that is the stuff that pisses me off and why we have a $27T deficient. And the progressives want more of that ****.
I say "force" a bit metaphorically, but if you have access to whole foods, preventative medical care, and fitness opportunities, you'll be pretty healthy. Basically, provide the basis for a culture of health and fitness.You think you can force people to be healthy? I don't think that is going to work, especially when the people pushing for socialism are the same people that are anti body shaming, saying fat is healthy etc.... It may work out though, if they achieve their socialist dream we will all probably be standing in bread lines at some point and the unhealthy fat people will either lose weight or die.
How is the availability of quality health care at good prices "force(ing) people to be healthy"? For the record, I'm all for worthless citizens getting the boot. If the 14th amendment can be used to grant "personhood" to corporations, let's just say that corporate subsidies outnumber welfare recipient dollars 50:1. You want to work on the deficit? Start there. Then we can discuss military wastefulness.You think you can force people to be healthy? I don't think that is going to work, especially when the people pushing for socialism are the same people that are anti body shaming, saying fat is healthy etc.... It may work out though, if they achieve their socialist dream we will all probably be standing in bread lines at some point and the unhealthy fat people will either lose weight or die.
It really does benefit Americans.That's also because we give out billions of dollars to other countries. No other nation on earth comes close to the amount of taxpayer money we send overseas. That has got to stop, this does not benefit Americans.
Once the government sets prices, it is engaging in force. Period. There is no other way to do it.How is the availability of quality health care at good prices "force(ing) people to be healthy"?
its precedent for authoritarianism, if government can determine pricing or what one would provide a service for that would be the end of a free market system, we already have it, overreach by government to regulate the free market in many waysOnce the government sets prices, it is engaging in force. Period. There is no other way to do it.
"Health care" is a service.
Services are provided by servants who provide the service to those who want it.
Health care can also be manufactured goods, such as, for instance, insulin.
"Good prices" are subjective. You are asking somebody other than the seller and buyer together making the determination to set a "good price" subjectively and then to enforce it (force). That subjective determination has all sorts of additional consequences beyond merely a "price," because "price" is an incentive. It causes innovation, competition, and self rationing. When you remove the price signal, other things are set into motion. This is why there are shortages of things like gasoline after a hurricane (price gouging laws, set into Georgia law by Republicans actually cause and prolong such shortages, because a "good price" is being set subjectively by somebody who cannot possibly control for all of the consequences of his choice, but rather only one consequence, the "good price" at the pump).
Setting a "good price" by government force in health care likewise has consequences far beyond merely the "price" that is set.
problem is you can vote your way in but shoot your way out and they want to take our guns.Who wants to bet in 10 years the socialists want capitalism again!!!