Is there a rational case for arguing that socailism is sometimes neccessary when devasting abuses of economic freedom take place in society

[MindOverMatter2]

Do you have any arguments for or against?

Could it be that in some extreme cases that the preservation of economic freedom can actually be an evil on society? Do you think that sometimes in-order to preserve other freedoms and human dignities that we must take some economic freedoms away in times when a great economic tragedy effects and damages society as a whole.

I am aware of the churches position on socialism. But I warn you, i will not take kindly to theology being introduced in to a philosophical debate and i will most likely attempt to embarrass you if you do so. Nothing personal.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It might help if you give a definition for what you mean by “rational.” In the other thread on a rational basis for survival there seems to have been a lot of disagreement from questions on the usage of the word “rational” never being answered, such as

By “rational” do you mean “logical”? Does “rational” necessarily exclude “emotional”?

.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Who is deciding to take freedoms away? Who gets to establish the parameters of a “great economic tragedy?” And is this a temporary lessening of freedoms or is it permanent? If it is supposedly temporary, who decides when it should stop?

How can you preserve freedom by taking away freedom? Logical failure in conception, I think…For an illustration, look at the Homeland Security Administration, the TSA in particular.



Does a socialist economy really assist anyone out of difficult economic times? You could ask the people of Greece about that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It might help if you give a definition for what you mean by “rational.” In the other thread on a rational basis for survival there seems to have been a lot of disagreement from questions on the usage of the word “rational” never being answered, such as .

I am looking for an ethical bases, not an ontological basis. In this case i speak of rational only in the practical sense of being consistent with the idea of “human well-being”. I would like you to look at the argument in the context of moral well being. By moral, i mean consistent with the belief that we should love one another and work together to improve each-others well being.

Is capitalism sometimes an evil against this position?

If you don’t understand what i mean, just give your feeling about socialism and why your are either for it or against it.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Do you have any arguments for or against?

Could it be that in some extreme cases that the preservation of economic freedom can actually be an evil on society? Do you think that sometimes in-order to preserve other freedoms and human dignities that we must take some economic freedoms away in times when a great economic tragedy effects and damages society as a whole.

I am aware of the churches position on socialism. But I warn you, i will not take kindly to theology being introduced in to a philosophical debate and i will most likely attempt to embarrass you if you do so. Nothing personal.

The USA has got a socialist type of Society…

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Could it be that in some extreme cases that the preservation of economic freedom can actually be an evil on society? Do you think that sometimes in-order to preserve other freedoms and human dignities that we must take some economic freedoms away in times when a great economic tragedy effects and damages society as a whole.

As mentioned in some of my other posts, I’ve studied economics extensively. And one thing I will say is that no contemporary economist speaks about socialism anymore. It’s a bygone system - discussing about it is like discussing about whether the world is flat. As for the Church’s opinion on economic matters…quite frankly, economists don’t care.

I think what you are trying to ask is: Is Government intervention sometimes necessary in bringing about more desirable positions than if left to the market? Most economic traditions would answer yes, especially the Keynesians and to a lesser extent, the Monetarists. Neoclassicals disagree slightly and Austrians disagree wholeheartedly.

What you have to understand is that contemporary political theory recognizes two aspects to freedom: Negative liberty and Positive Liberty. Negative liberty is freedom from coercion, and it’s the aspect of freedom entities such as the Tea Party focus solely on. The “forgotten” freedom is Positive Liberty, which is sometimes known as “freedom from want”. This encompasses freedom from infant mortality, freedom from preventable disease, and so on and so forth. By its very nature, positive liberty emerges out of governmental action. It can not and does not emerge out of negative liberty or the marketplace. A successful society combines both negative liberty and positive liberty - a society where one can be an individual and have a right to private property, and a society where individuals from less well-off backgrounds can achieve their potential. Eminent economist Amartya Sen speaks about this in his magnum opus Development as Freedom.

There are certain cases in which a government has to intervene against what are called in economics as “market failures” - where the market fails to achieve a socially optimal position, and a government has to intervene to bring that socially optimal position about.

A simple case of “market failure” is in the instance of the armed forces. The market can not provide for the army. This is because if corporations were to do so, people who didn’t pay for the army would still benefit from the provision of the army, and those who paid are essentially being ripped off because others are enjoying the army at the expense of them. This is known as the “free rider dilemma”. Hence, a central authority such as a government uses tax revenue to fund the armed forces. To use the technical term, the armed forces are “non-excludable” and “non-rivalrous”.

My favourite case of market failure is that of the efficiency wage, as demonstrated by the Shapiro-Stiglitz model. It’s a bit complicated to explain, but hopefully this Wikipedia page will clarify it better than I can: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wages#Shirking

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The USA has got a socialist type of Society…

Are you serious? In what sense? One of the main pillars of socialism is the belief that private property ultimately goes against the dignity of human nature, since it allows people to horde valuable goods and land at the expense of workers and the poor, because these people do not see any significant return from the profits even though they are very foundation of business; and they cannot make there own business because large corporations have gobbled up all the rights to technology land.

Is the USA against private property?

 

[rossum]

Do you have any arguments for or against?

Could it be that in some extreme cases that the preservation of economic freedom can actually be an evil on society? Do you think that sometimes in-order to preserve other freedoms and human dignities that we must take some economic freedoms away in times when a great economic tragedy effects and damages society as a whole.

I am aware of the churches position on socialism. But I warn you, i will not take kindly to theology being introduced in to a philosophical debate and i will most likely attempt to embarrass you if you do so. Nothing personal.

What do you mean by “socialism”? It is apparent that the definition used in America differs from the definition used in Europe. The Republican Party appears to think that most European health care systems are “socialist”, while Europeans do not see them as such.

rossum

 

[St_Francis]

I am looking for an ethical bases, not an ontological basis. In this case i speak of rational only in the practical sense of being consistent with the idea of “human well-being”. I would like you to look at the argument in the context of moral well being. By moral, i mean consistent with the belief that we should love one another and work together to improve each-others well being.

Is capitalism sometimes an evil against this position?

If you don’t understand what i mean, just give your feeling about socialism and why your are either for it or against it.

In answer to your original question, I don’t think that every possible aspect of socialism is always completely wrong, just like entering a house and taking something is not in and of itself wrong. If it’s your house, then it’s ok, if it’s stranger’s house, if the house is on fire and you run in and take some stuff oit to protect it… you see what I’m saying.

So socialism as a proposed system is bad for various reasons. OTOH, there bave been times in history when a temporary adoption of a couple oof socialist principles has not been a bad thing. So if a tyrant has expropriated all the land in an area and he is overthrown, then a re-apportioning of the land would probably be a good thing.

In terms of pure and total socialism, I do not think that would ever be a good thing, nor would it be temporary. I cannot imagine how that would ever be justified.

And you ask about feelings about socialism (!)… my feelings are very negative. I think it is a vile piece of trickery designed to accrue power to oneself by lying to others and appealing to their vices.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I’d like a definition of “socialism” that is to be used in this discussion. There’s a lot of differing views on what socialism is, or what parts of socialism should be emphasized to either demonize or glorify it.

 

[Contarini]

Do you have any arguments for or against?

Could it be that in some extreme cases that the preservation of economic freedom can actually be an evil on society? Do you think that sometimes in-order to preserve other freedoms and human dignities that we must take some economic freedoms away in times when a great economic tragedy effects and damages society as a whole.

I am aware of the churches position on socialism. But I warn you, i will not take kindly to theology being introduced in to a philosophical debate and i will most likely attempt to embarrass you if you do so. Nothing personal.

You need to define socialism.

When you speak of “taking some economic freedoms away,” I suspect that you aren’t talking about what official Church documents call socialism.

Economic freedom is and always should be limited in accordance with the common good. That’s just classic, traditional Catholic thinking, and for that matter it’s common sanity. Calling it “socialism” is, in my opinion, an abuse of language.

Now if you want to have a debate about government ownership of the means of production, *that’s *a meaningful debate.

Could there be circumstances in which that was necessary? Possibly. And of course even this is susceptible of degrees.

I’m always dubious of allowing for things that are intrinsically either evil or undesirable on the ground of necessity, because human beings are very good at claiming necessity for what they want.

I have no fear of being embarrassed by you, and I will freely and unapologetically bring theology into everything, because it belongs in everything.

Edwin

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think the first paragraph gives us a sufficient out line of what i mean by socialism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[galahad9000]

There is an alternative to Socialism known as Distributism (or Distributivism or Distributionism) first suggested by Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton and developed further by John Medaille. You might want to check out the latter’s site before buying into Marxian, Leninist, DeLeonist or Fabian Socialism. Medaille has made the practical application of Distributism possible by providing a totally rational basis for it. His most recent book on this is excellent.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership.[2] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[3][4]

Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic (name removed by moderator)uts to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution.[7]

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, either arise spontaneously or be built from the bottom up utilizing the strategy of dual power. They promote direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.

 

[tonyrey]

We can sidestep a definition of socialism by considering whether a government should be concerned with the welfare of all members of society, not just the privileged few, and legislate to prevent gross inequality of income and wealth which prevents any one from enjoying the basic necessities of life, developing their talents and pursuing a fulfilling career. To think otherwise is not only unChristian but uncivilised…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Are you serious? In what sense? One of the main pillars of socialism is the belief that private property ultimately goes against the dignity of human nature, since it allows people to horde valuable goods and land at the expense of workers and the poor, because these people do not see any significant return from the profits even though they are very foundation of business; and they cannot make there own business because large corporations have gobbled up all the rights to technology land.

Is the USA against private property?

Look, my son sent through College and now he is in Thailand. It was a good lesson for him. He said: “Dad, here noone has got anything. no insurance, no pension, nothing. all admire the USA, where everybody wants to go to. There is a lady I met who only speaks english to her daughter so that she may go the the States”.

Before the New Deal, it was pure capitalism. After, things got more balanced. I am not saying that the USA is marxism, material socialis but it is a tempered capitalism.

There are better systems though in the world.