Socialism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t misunderstand a free market to be free of the rule of law. Property rights and free trade do not mean you are free to do as you wish at all times. Government needs to provide a framework for a free market to work within. Protecting property rights is priority #1 as any economist will tel you. Seizing and redistributing hard earned assets means you are mortgaging your commitment to personal property rights. It erodes the benefits gained from capitalism.

And PLEASE stop quoting some book over and over. It’s amazing what you can do with your own mind and with an understanding of the many good thinkers in history.
 
rlg94086 said:
Explain to me how it matters whether it is a free market or not? A despotic, socialist government is just as likely to yield the same…if not worse.

The scary scenario of genetic engineering of “perfect” children is a possibility irrespective of economic model.
Click to expand...
The free market scenario is predictable and scary (and the potential for extreme inequality justifies redistribution)…

A free market will only allow some parents to do it as it would be prohibitably expensive for most, while universal access will prevent inequalities from arising. It wouldn’t be coercion but it would be subsidized with people choosing to use the service or not (most people will, of course).

It seems such a possible scenario has to be addressed though in the future. I wonder how economics will solve it.
 
ribozyme said:
The free market scenario is predictable and scary (and the potential for extreme inequality justifies redistribution)…

A free market will only allow some parents to do it as it would be prohibitably expensive for most, while universal access will prevent inequalities from arising. It wouldn’t be coercion but it would be subsidized with people choosing to use the service or not (most people will, of course).

It seems such a possible scenario has to be addressed though in the future. I wonder how economics will solve it.
Click to expand...
You are making a big assumption that a non-free-market government would give universal access. You are also making the assumption that a free-market-based government would allow it. Not everything is made legal in a free market.
 
rlg94086 said:
You are making a big assumption that a non-free-market government would give universal access. You are also making the assumption that a free-market-based government would allow it. Not everything is made legal in a free market.
Click to expand...
Correct, much like recreational drugs, but it is hard suppress access if one can go to a domain (let’s say another country) that does not have laws against it. I think that happens in the case of anti-abortion laws too, and prohibition in the United States.
 
ribozyme said:
Correct, much like recreational drugs, but it is hard suppress access if one can go to a domain (let’s say another country) that does not have laws against it. I think that happens in the case of anti-abortion laws too, and prohibition in the United States.
Click to expand...
Right, but what does that have to do with free markets versus socialism? Or are you advocating totalitarian socialism and closed borders? 😛
 
ribozyme said:
How would a world controlled by Peter Singer be horrible? I would imagine it abortion, consensual euthanasia, and embryonic stem cells would be prevalent. But how would it result in genocides that would be in the league of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

I will admit one consequence of a world where Peter Singer’s philosophy was strongly adhered to: maybe I wouldn’t be here to type this as I would have probably been discarded as an embryo from a genetic test as it deemed me not having a life worth living. But I guess that is the consequence of a quality of life utilitarian ethic that Singer adheres to. I am willing to accept such consequences mainly because I am somewhat discontent with the state of affairs of humanity and I feel powerless to solve anything. The notion of myself being aborted in my mother’s womb does not frighten me at all. However, such a philosophy does not permit killing me now as I have interests and I hope to survive a few decades. How does Singer’s philosophy will recapitulate the killing fields of Cambodia or the gas chambers at Auschwitz? I think it would simply extoll parental choice (a libertarian virtue) with human reproduction.
Click to expand...

There are two things (at least) that I don’t think you are allowing for:​

    1. The “law of unintended consequences”
    1. Human sinfulness
      It’s all well & good planning what one would do, if one were in a position to do it - but that does not allow for 1 or 2, both of which are unpredictable & take unpredictable forms. No form of social planning, & no philosophy, however benignly intended, is proof against human stupidity, human fallibility & human viciousness. And good ideas gone wrong can very easily produce a Hell on earth. Do people never learn from the past ? Apparently not.
I’d rather be alive than dead, thank you very much 🙂 - in a Singerian world, I’d probably not be: like you & like a lot of others. I find it frightening - no, horrifying - that the unborn should be disposed of like waste by the very people whom one would expect to be the last people on earth to do such a thing. As an inversion of “Greater love no man has, than to lay down his life or his friends (John 15.3)”, it takes some beating. Abortion has been legal in Britain since 1966, & it was legalised with the best of intentions. 40 years later, six million abortions have taken place. In the USA, it’s 30 million since 1973. I think that may answer your question…
 
ribozyme said:
They do not have the capacity to even think; if the abortion is done earlier enough, such as before 20 weeks after conception, no suffering is inflicted. Rape victims, however, suffer if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...
And if you gas someone in their sleep, they don’t suffer, either – but it’s still murder.
 
ribozyme said:
The free market scenario is predictable and scary (and the potential for extreme inequality justifies redistribution)…
.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to the crux of your opposition – you believe in a free market, you would fail in competition.
 
Exactly. That’s too funny. His concern is that he’d fail if he had to compete.
 
milde said:
Exactly. That’s too funny. His concern is that he’d fail if he had to compete.
Click to expand...
It reminds me of a flight I once took on a military plane – there were parachutes for everyone. A young lady – a Department of the Army civilian – objected and said we shouldn’t have them.

“Ma’am? Why do you think we shouldn’t have parachutes?”

“Well, I wouldn’t be able to jump!”😛
 
vern_humphrey said:
Which brings us to the crux of your opposition – you believe in a free market, you would fail in competition.
Click to expand...
Have you seen this movie? It seems that doing an abortion on those conceived naturally would be an act of mercy in that movie. Those who were conceived naturally usually couldn’t make it through the competition. Never said anything about myself.
 
ribozyme said:
Have you seen this movie? It seems that doing an abortion on those conceived naturally would be an act of mercy in that movie. Those who were conceived naturally usually couldn’t make it through the competition. Never said anything about myself.
Click to expand...
You justify murdering the most innocent amongst us based on a movie!?!:eek:
 
consumedconvert said:
Something else you and I agree on 😉
Click to expand...
In our little church, we have several parishoners who are mentally handicapped – they live in a group home. They are, in effect real people who can’t “make it through the competition.”

Would he dare to ask one of them if they wanted him to kill them? If people with those disabilities don’t choose to die, who is he to choose for them?
 
vern_humphrey said:
In our little church, we have several parishoners who are mentally handicapped – they live in a group home. They are, in effect real people who can’t “make it through the competition.”

Would he dare to ask one of them if they wanted him to kill them? If people with those disabilities don’t choose to die, who is he to choose for them?
Click to expand...
Sadly, many would like to choose death for them. I completely agree with your stance here and also your stance on abortion. 👍
 
consumedconvert said:
Sadly, many would like to choose death for them. I completely agree with your stance here and also your stance on abortion. 👍
Click to expand...
Yes, there are people who would choose death for them – such people have a serious God-complex!
 
I still believe that in some cases, abortion is an act of mercy.

This is a cruel, cruel world and some will never prosper.
Capitalism deals a ruthless blow to people who can’t or won’t create value for others. It’s sounds very Christian to me, so I don’t understand why the church doesn’t preach more about the evils of socialism.
Click to expand...
I suppose in some cases it is better to terminate some lives before they are capable of suffering (as an embryo or an early-stage fetus), than to allow them to live a life full of suffering. This is one conclusion of negative utilitarianism.
 
ribozyme said:
I still believe that in some cases, abortion is an act of mercy.

This is a cruel, cruel world and some will never prosper.

I suppose in some cases it is better to terminate some lives before they are capable of suffering (as an embryo or an early-stage fetus), than to allow them to live a life full of suffering. This is one conclusion of negative utilitarianism.
Click to expand...
It is a sad conclusion. It is the same conclusion someone comes to when they attempt/commit suicide. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top