Why is socialism so bad?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

That is quite delusional.

what did you expect, sanity????

But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?

there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process.

no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual.

yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .

we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

[GoldenBoy812]

we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.

I agree to a point, so i will explain.

First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.

Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.

Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.

Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable, as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).

[DaBudhaStank]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

what did you expect, sanity????

there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

I can't argue with you about this anymore. Sorry, law is necessary and that's all there is to it. We wouldn't have made them if they weren't (yes, I know there are some that are stupid and NOT necessary).

I agree to a point, so i will explain.

First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.

Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.

Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.

Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable,

I can live with this, it's better than a world free of consequence.

as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).

lol

[thcbongman]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

what did you expect, sanity????

there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

But how is my example a "wild west stereotype?" It's very real, you have anarchist enclaves all over the country. Mind you, they aren't blasting people or are some shadowy figures. They simply want to live in their self-sustainable communities in peace. You also got hippie enclaves, who are anarchists, because they live off the land and of nature. They are anarchists.

What you stated is very interesting. I'd just like to know how everyone would achieve "enlightened self-interest?" How would we end up in a situation where a few good but powerful souls can enforce self-awareness and respect for others in order to live in a peaceful yet economically prosperous society? Please keep in mind, I'm not opposed to any what you say, infact it has opened my mind more. It requires a huge leap of faith I agree, but there has to be some sort of controls in order to mitigate risk. Otherwise based on what you described, anyone that has this different idea can form "a group" and attack the central authority and establish themselves as the central authority. Actually I think that's the part I don't understand. It's like:

Overthrow Central Authority ---------> ????? ----------> Anarchist Society.

[psychocat]

Anarchy would only serve to free those of us who don't much like people to do a bit of societal cleansing :thumbsup:

Some of us are much more capable of reverting to our most animalistic state if there were no boundaries imposed to hold us back.

[jonquest]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

[psychocat]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

There is no such thing as a free market.

[JakeMartinez]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

That's communism, not socialism.

Socialism means that the government takes over some markets, such as housing, health care, food production, etc.

You're thinking of communism, where the state tells you where to work and where to live and what to eat.

If it's not okay to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (especially income taxes) must really bother you.

[GoldenBoy812]

That's communism, not socialism.

Socialism means that the government takes over some markets, such as housing, health care, food production, etc.

You're thinking of communism, where the state tells you where to work and where to live and what to eat.

If it's not okay to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (especially income taxes) must really bother you.

I see nowhere in Jonquest's post about government telling you where to work/live.

Emerging economies that lean toward socialist ideology eventually require an even greater divergence of power to the government. Failure to do so allows for the ability of competition as well as open market activities that transition economies to a more market centered destination.

Norway for example leans completely to the left, yet allows certain open market activities. They can do this because of an abundance of potential energy available to export with a small population. As the state produced production of energy per citizen shrinks (finite resources and growing population), the more authority a state must consume in order for equity to maintain static.

Cuba on the other hand has to subscribe to authoritarian control to maintain their equity stake. Freeing of their markets allows for free market activity to begin.

Emerging economies tend to be authoritarian during the initial stages of development. Freeing of trade lowers costs for consumers of such a state, and therefore does not allow its economy to grow from a production standpoint. Reason be, it is impossible for emerging markets to compete on a cost/production level with developed nations.

Take our farming industry for example. The exporting of agriculture is not done so on a free level, at least in regards to actual free trade. Reason be, subsidies exist that lower the total production costs via tax payer money. A lower production opportunity cost lowers aggregate price accordingly. Given this situation, how else can emerging markets develop a sustainable phase 1 economy (agriculture) without isolating (protectionism) itself from developed countries?

The reason Norway's energy industry is stable coincides with the fact that foreign entities are not free to export to Norway. Once the productivity of this industry increases, expect one of two possibilities: 1.) they allow open market activities... 2.) More control is issued to the state.

[JakeMartinez]

There is nothing as scarce as you think it is, GoldenBoy.

Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that

Abundance

and Sustainability

are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.

Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.

Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?



I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.

The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life. If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.

And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.