Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 9 of 36
(My thoughts are messy and not fully formed, but I thought I'd try to answer this question.)
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
... I was particularly interested in the socialist explanation of what, to me, seems a contradiction. If we're not willing to let the government tell us where we can live, what career we can pursue, etc.... yet we don't want wealth to be the deciding factor, how do such dilemmas get resolved?
Well, I'm not into pure socialism, so maybe I'm not the person you want to hear from, but my view is that wealth should not be a deciding factor for basic things - decent food, water, shelter, health care, schooling (either through public schools or more unorthodox methods) - but that, beyond those things, wealth can be a deciding factor (though I'm not a fan of corporatism or our consumer culture as is, so it would be nice if those changed, too). One way to do this could to subsidize farms so that everyone could get food for free, whatever was in season. Community gardening is something that could help, too. Providing housing in exchange for work might be a solution, though obviously that wouldn't be an option for everyone. But, then, if you weren't able to work, that would probably be covered by free health care. We need to crack down on big polluters, especially people who think it's okay to dump stuff in poor and/or minority neighborhoods, because it eventually gets back to the water - which none of us really owns due to the water cycle, and which none of us should be able to own because it is such a precious and essential resource.
Or, we could go with something like Bytemite's suggestion from another thread: anarcho-socialism. There wouldn't be a government, so thus no dilemma!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Or, we could go with something like Bytemite's suggestion from another thread: anarcho-socialism. There wouldn't be a government, so thus no dilemma!
I've always been curious how that is supposed to work as well. I think I'll google it.
Anyway, thanks for taking my question seriously. The issue I'm struggling with in this thread is, in essence, how things get "divvied up" in a socialist society. I always thought that government was the presumed mechanism. But now I'm not so sure that's the intent (of those who propose socialism). So I'm curious how such decisions are made.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
From the libertarian point of view, the protection of individual freedom is the sole justifiable purpose of government.
How rigidly do you hold to this, can I ask?
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
How rigidly do you hold to this, can I ask?
Well, "within reason" I like to think. I'm not 100% opposed to laws of convenience* when consensus is very high and the burden (in terms of limiting freedom) is very low. But those types of laws should be the exception, rather than the rule. And the protection of rights should remain paramount.
* Laws and regulations which make a shared commons possible - traffic regulations, pollution laws, etc...
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've always been curious how that is supposed to work as well. I think I'll google it.
Anyway, thanks for taking my question seriously. The issue I'm struggling with in this thread is, in essence, how things get "divvied up" in a socialist society. I always thought that government was the presumed mechanism. But now I'm not so sure that's the intent (of those who propose socialism). So I'm curious how such decisions are made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Government should force the powerful to give up that power. And I see you feel SO SORRY about that!
One of the many examples of the "Government should force someone to do something, or force them to give up something they've created or earned, for the benefit of the masses" line that SignyM tends to take.
Quote:This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well. Doesn't that trouble you?
Aren't you in the least bit troubled by the concept that government should force any media outlet to give pretty much unlimited airtime to anyone who asks? I don't think there are that many channels available.
--------------
Quote:You have both missed the point entirely. Large entities of concentrated wealth with or without government power, by themselves are coercive and I've given you many examples already.
Yup. Economic power is dependent on government power.- Sarge
Any system of economics, if backed up by the government in power can be coercive.-Geezer
But you have such an idee fixe about government that you can't even see what's in front of your noses. You give capitalism what Frem calls perceived legitimacy, and that is what allows capitalism to run the government. In another thread the question was asked: What is the most important right? My answer was The right to think freely. NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS AN IDEA. If an entire population believes that it is right to sacrifice babies to Moloch they will willingly give them up. And that is exactly what we have, and what you believe in: A system which chews people up - children, moms and dads, grandparents, the disabled- and spits them out, a system which YOU believe is so important that you are willing to accept poverty, curable illness, starvation, humiliation, horror, overlords, and death as sacrifices to its logic. You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even imagine life without it, nor can you see that it is system which can be changed because it is nothing but a construct, as artificial and belief-driven as Moloch ever was. ----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A system which chews people up - children, moms and dads, grandparents, the disabled- and spits them out, a system which YOU believe is so important that you are willing to accept poverty, curable illness, starvation, humiliation, horror, overlords, and death as sacrifices to its logic. You are so wedded to this system that you cannot even imagine life without it, nor can you see that it is system which can be changed because it is nothing but a construct, as artificial and belief-driven as Moloch ever was.
Good post, Signy, and good point. Reminds me a bit of Morpheus...
Quote:
"Of course, no one can be told what The Matrix is..."
But now you've got me thinking. I don't know WHAT we would have without our current system, or something quite related to it, but maybe we SHOULD think about that - not "what works best about our system?" but rather "what system would work best FOR US?"
This discussion might have just gotten a whole lot more interesting.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're either hopelessly dense, or you just like to argue- I think it's the latter.
Originally posted by Geezer:
One of the many examples of the "Government should force someone to do something, or force them to give up something they've created or earned, for the benefit of the masses" line that SignyM tends to take.
Aren't you in the least bit troubled by the concept that government should force any media outlet to give pretty much unlimited airtime to anyone who asks? I don't think there are that many channels available.
That still doesn't answer the 'welfare' part, but to be ridiculous, yes, EVERYONE should get their daily 15 minutes on the air- that's what she's saying.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer
"When Rue and SignyM go into tag-team insult mode, you might as well forget it. Too bad. Sorry I missed what could have been an intersting discussion."
I dare you to find me ANY PERSONAL CRITISICM OR OBSERVATION I MADE to this point - AT ALL. ANYTHING AT ALL THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS NON-TOPICAL. ALL I DID WAS ASK TOPICAL, IMPERSONAL QUESTIONS.
PISS OFF - ASSHOLE 
You are a lying sack of right-wing shit. There. NOW you have your deserved insult.
***************************************************************
"I’m actually a little pleased to see that I’m not the only one SigRue does this to."
Oh, and Finn - As the 'me too' tag-team lying sack of shit you are, here's one for you, too.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME