Republicans Flip Flop on Ayn Rand

Started Apr 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
BorisK1
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,869Gear list
Like?
Re: Social Security and Medicare
In reply to Chato, May 1, 2012

Chato wrote:

But I didn't mention any of the dictatorial aspects of the Soviet Union. Yes, there was the secret police and mass repressions - but I didn't write about that. The examples I listed have nothing to do with dictatorship. It was just Socialism in action.

Sorry, NO, it's not "Socialism in action." There is nothing in Socialist doectrine about imposing on an unwilling population dictatorial "norms" and calling them Democratic.

Actually, by the time I was born, the basic lifestyle was quite democratic. The population was willing enough.

Socialists believe in Nationalising the "Means of production" not small business.

For a small business, hammer and drill are means of production.

So you're saying, there would be some kind of criteria? A company would have to be a certain size before it's nationalized? Or would small businesses apply for an exception ahead of time, frame it, and show to the revolutionaries when they come?

Oh, and without total control, how could Socialists guarantee the individual's right to gainful employment?

(What, your version of "socialism" doesn't even guarantee the right to work ?! Blasphemy! What kind of socialism is that?!)

Socialism believes in the liberation of the individual, within a society which allows those individual decisions.

But of course individuals would be liberated! They were in Soviet Union. I was told about it daily since kindergarden. I still remember the slogans: "Freedom is the realized necessity".

Centralised planning of industrialised development is not incompatible with choosing your own career, changing your career decisions - Going off to live in the woods if that's what you want.

If you put together a plan, you need an authority to compel people to execute that plan, no? Otherwise you might as well not bother.

Under Socialism the majority does NOT have the right to unilaterlly impose on the individual. For example, there is nothing in the US Constitution incompatible with Socialism. And if the Constitutional protections are in place, then much of what you suggest is impossible.

I'm not a legal expert, but I find it hard to believe that the US Constitution doesn't contradict nationalizing a factory.

[snip]

The legal prevention of the power of money taking control of society is the primary goal of todays left wing, Libertarian Socialists. Individual choice is the second goal. In other words, no one will be able to aspire to having enough wealth to buy power - Other than that, decisions will indeed be democratic, but you cannot democratically outlaw the Bill of Rights. The majority indeed "rules," but it rules within the context of rules set by the governing law - the law of the land - And that law is the US Constitution.

So you want to nationalize larger factories and put a hard legal limit on how much wealth an individual is allowed to accumulate, and call that first "liberating" and then "libertarian" (who, IIRC, believe that the goverment's role should be pretty much limited to contract enforcement, road construction, police, and military)... All within the framework of the existing laws.

Hmm, "Left Wing Libertarian Socialists"... If I were you, I'd add the words "Highly coherent", just so people don't get the wrong idea.

 BorisK1's gear list:BorisK1's gear list
Olympus Tough TG-1 iHS Olympus E-3 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow