Michael Moore on socialism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
Ownership and the use of property are different – if all own the property then then the right to use property becomes the more important. In the socialist creed, a few know better than the many; they call themselves the “elite.” In socialism, the right to ownership is less important than the right to use.
Click to expand...
You are completely wrong to indicate that the right to use property is what really matters.

Read up on the Tragedy of the Commons


 
Theo520 said:
You are completely wrong to indicate that the right to use property is what really matters.

Read up on the Tragedy of the Commons
Click to expand...
After you read up on the kinds of property rights, walk into the White House and tell them you want to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom tonight. As the Secret Service body slams and cuff you, remind them that this is the “people’s house.”
 
o_mlly said:
After you read up on the kinds of property rights, walk into the White House and tell them you want to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom tonight. As the Secret Service body slams and cuff you, remind them that this is the “people’s house.”
Click to expand...
Not clear what point you thought you were making. My use rights to the WH are to take a tour, unless I’m elected POTUS or make a huge donation.
 
o_mlly said:
Think about it. You’ll get it eventually. Your planned weekend at Camp David will end the same.
Click to expand...
Nope, you just failed to make a valid point.
Suggest in the future you follow basic writing best practices and support your positions, clearly.

I introduced the Tragedy of the Commons, with support.
Noticed you completely ignored it in your responses.
This is well documented economy theory highly relevant to the ‘ownership’ debate.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Suggest in the future you follow basic writing best practices and support your positions, clearly.
I introduced the Tragedy of the Commons, with support.
Noticed you completely ignored it in your responses.
This is well documented economy theory highly relevant to the ‘ownership’ debate.
Click to expand...
You write the post is “completely wrong” followed by links to unrelated videos. ?

Take your own advice: "follow basic writing best practices and support your positions, clearly."
 
o_mlly said:
You write the post is “completely wrong” followed by links to unrelated videos. ?
Click to expand...
The topic was property rights vs usage rights.
That you think ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ is off topic, well that’s all on you.
 
o_mlly said:
The topic is “Michael Moore on Socialism.” Moore is uninformed. The post’s point is that just as there are capitalists pigs so also are there also socialist pigs. Read all about it:
Click to expand...
With socialism, it’s not about a couple of bad eggs. It’s failed consistently and repeatedly because of it’s flaws.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
o_mlly:
The topic is “Michael Moore on Socialism.” Moore is uninformed. The post’s point is that just as there are capitalists pigs so also are there also socialist pigs. Read all about it:
Click to expand...
With socialism, it’s not about a couple of bad eggs. It’s failed consistently and repeatedly because of it’s flaws.
Click to expand...
It’s failed repeatedly? Literally all the first-world countries on this planet have varying degrees of socialist elements present in the function of their economies.

Literally all of them. Without exception.

Now this unfettered socialism where absolutely all goods and services are gathered and distributed through a centralized authority (presumably the government)? You have some excellent arguments against that.

But I’m not sure that’s ever actually existed (as even NK, the soviets and Cuba still use(d) currency) and I don’t think anyone is actually arguing for that.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
It’s failed repeatedly? Literally all the first-world countries on this planet have varying degrees of socialist elements present in the function of their economies.

Literally all of them. Without exception.
Click to expand...
ROFL, stop pretending your ‘socialist elements’ are socialism. Socialism is about govt owning the resources, not public schools and welfare. We had some form of all your socialist elements since we’ve had churches basicly.

Every attempt at a socialist govt has failed to produce, thus they fail.

In contrast every OECD country that relies on capitalism for their economy thrives. China did not thrive until they turned towards capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
ROFL, stop pretending your ‘socialist elements’ are socialism.
Click to expand...
Oh there’s no pretending. The collection of taxes, fees and other monies compulsorily handed over to the government and then the allocation of those monies to goods and services consumed by both the general public and targeted segments of that public is socialism.

If you want to be the guy in the corner shouting “it’s not!”, that’s fine. But you’re objectively wrong by every poly sci and econ professor I’ve ever studied under.
We had some form of all your socialist elements since we’ve had churches basicly.
Click to expand...
I’m genuinely thrilled you see that. Brava!
Every attempt at a socialist govt has failed to produce, thus they fail.
Click to expand...
A few things here…
First there is no such thing as “socialist govt”. Broad socialism is an economic philosophy that has been used in varying degrees by every type of government that’s ever legitimately existed.
Next, I have serious doubts that a socialist economy as you envision it has ever existed, so it would be difficult to say they’ve all failed. It’s sorta like saying unicorns went extinct.
Third, the economy of the more socialist USSR outgrew the economy of the less socialist US for much of the 1950s and growth was comparable for a few decades. But even then, the soviets still didn’t completely meet the standard of socialism you set forth; since the private citizenry still held their own currency for use in their markets (tying back the the 2nd point).
In contrast every OECD country that relies on capitalism for their economy thrives. China did not thrive until they turned towards capitalism.
Click to expand...
I think there’s some truth to that (only some, as the Chinese economy remains incredibly centralized). Thus, it seems the man that says “Only Socialism!!!” is equally as foolish as the man that says “Only Capitalism!!!”.
 
So you watered down your definition so much that every Govt on the planet qualifies.
 
Vonsalza said:
And you’ve over-condensed yours to the point that none of them qualify and probably none ever have.
Click to expand...
Hardly, I go with the common definition. It’s pretty clear in my system which countries are socialist and by how much.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
And you’ve over-condensed yours to the point that none of them qualify and probably none ever have.
Click to expand...
Hardly, I go with the common definition. It’s pretty clear in my system which countries are socialist and by how much.
Click to expand...
*emphasis added

Very good! In addition to recognizing there are socialist qualities in Christ’s Church (above), you also seem to implicitly recognize here that it’s also a continuum and not a fixed point.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Very good! In addition to recognizing there are socialist qualities in Christ’s Church (above), you also seem to implicitly recognize here that it’s also a continuum and not a fixed point.
Click to expand...
I see you are confused about Catholic doctrine. It demands the individual practice subsidiarity and loving your neighbor, Doctrine doesn’t say it’s the Govt’s responsibility.

The US ranks extremely low on any measure of socialist tendencies, but very highly in giving both time and money to help others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top