Remember when socialism was a dirty word?

[Rod Snell]

Maybe we should pass out copies of George Orwells's Animal Farm and require it to be read in Senior English again.

Too many people only hear the "promises that they're going to get ice cream" and don't know or understand there is no "free lunch."

"Things will go on much as they always have, that is to say, badly"
Benjamin the donkey in Animal Farm

 

[Riley]

Crowder with - "Yes, Hitler was a liberal socialist"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VybWkpt_3Jo

 

[sureNsteady]

https://newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

As with anything it's important to investigate the differences between the two and not just rely on labels. Ignorance will always be a dirty word.

 

[mightymouse]

How many of you know that, before the First World War, Oklahoma had the largest Socialist Party membership PER CAPITA in the nation?

 

[YukonGlocker]

Yep.

OU professor: Youths' attraction to Sanders shows education failure

A rebuttal, from one professor about the other: http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2016/02/02/david-deming-and-strawmanning/

 

[chuter]

A rebuttal, from one professor about the other: http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2016/02/02/david-deming-and-strawmanning/

From the article:

But is this a “free lunch?” Not at all. A better analogy would be that it’s the kid who has an entire backpack full of food sharing an apple with his friends, some of whom have a sandwich and some chips, some of whom have only some chips, and some that have nothing at all. The kid isn’t going to have the bag ripped from his hands, leaving him with nothing. Instead, he has more than he’ll ever be able to eat, and has even more waiting for him when he goes back home. The kid with the backpack literally loses nothing by helping out those around him, and in fact gains from doing so by helping to make the world a better place.

Maybe the kid wouldn't have the backpack ripped from his hands leaving him with nothing, but he will have some of it taken from him without his permission. Sounds like playground bullies to me.

Edit:

Dr. Lack spends a good part of his article trying to impugn the character of the first professor, as if that will discredit the argument.

Dr. Lack's point about the difference between socialism and democratic socialism may be valid, but if so then he doesn't need to point out what he doesn't like about the first guy.

Dr. Lack is using his moral judgement to say the kid with more food should share and if he doesn't then some should be taken from him: how about others offering to trade something for food instead of just taking it?

 

[LOKNLOD]

From the article:

But is this a “free lunch?” Not at all. A better analogy would be that it’s the kid who has an entire backpack full of food sharing an apple with his friends, some of whom have a sandwich and some chips, some of whom have only some chips, and some that have nothing at all. The kid isn’t going to have the bag ripped from his hands, leaving him with nothing. Instead, he has more than he’ll ever be able to eat, and has even more waiting for him when he goes back home. The kid with the backpack literally loses nothing by helping out those around him, and in fact gains from doing so by helping to make the world a better place.

Maybe the kid wouldn't have the backpack ripped from his hands leaving him with nothing, but he will have some of it taken from him without his permission. Sounds like playground bullies to me.

If the kid gives -- a little, or a lot -- from his backpack, he is to be commended. If he refuses to share, it may very well be accurate to call him a complete prick. But no matter how big of jerk he is, and how badly I want what he has, how much I think he doesn't deserve it, or that he has more than he really needs...if I take it by force, I'm stealing. If I take it by force, and give it to someone else, I'm still stealing. If the gov't takes it by force (and "by force" or threat of, is the only way the gov't can take anything), than the gov't is stealing too.

Socialism is just bullying by proxy. IF you're too much of a chickenshit to come to my house and take my stuff from me, because you think I have more than you and you deserve some of it, then don't whine to mama nannystate to come take it for you.

 

[YukonGlocker]

We already have many socialist programs (e.g., public roads, public water systems, public parks and recreations, emergency services such as police and fire, 13 years of public education, social security, medicare, etc.). That doesn't mean we're "socialist". But, in general, societies aren't successful or long-lasting if they don't employ some socialist principles...and we already do. Given all this, it isn't a large stretch to expand on the 13 years of socialist education we have with 2-4 more years (i.e., Bernie's education proposal), or the socialist medicare system to cover all citizens (i.e., Bernie's health care proposal).

 

[Norinoo]

If the kid gives -- a little, or a lot -- from his backpack, he is to be commended. If he refuses to share, it may very well be accurate to call him a complete prick. But no matter how big of jerk he is, and how badly I want what he has, how much I think he doesn't deserve it, or that he has more than he really needs...if I take it by force, I'm stealing. If I take it by force, and give it to someone else, I'm still stealing. If the gov't takes it by force (and "by force" or threat of, is the only way the gov't can take anything), than the gov't is stealing too.

Socialism is just bullying by proxy. IF you're too much of a chickenshit to come to my house and take my stuff from me, because you think I have more than you and you deserve some of it, then don't whine to mama nannystate to come take it for you.

This is why I view this group people call government as nothing but an organization of criminals in suits. These criminals the average Joe and Jane choose to be their masters come election time have no problem stealing from each paycheck we earn. "Thou shall not steal" comes to mind. If it is morally wrong for me to steal, how is it moral that voters can choose people to be their masters who will steal from me or you without our consent? And worse yet, use the money stolen from me to give to their fellow criminal gang members to buy weapons to be used against defenseless people around the world because those criminals seek to control other people. Look at how the innocent children in Gaza are being murdered day after day after day by criminals who are friends with the criminals people here vote into power. Sickening.

I see the entire thing coming back to 1 Samuel 7. People rejected God, decided to make a god in their image and called it government. Not only do people reject God as their rightful leader, they made themselves an idol. Basically, violating both the 1st and 2nd Commandments in one shot. The reality is that God owns everything in the universe. When Jesus said "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's", it seems he was essentially saying is that Caesar owned nothing because everything belongs to God. I get fed up with Christians who tell me that it is my duty to vote, to pay taxes and to give respect to thieves in suits. Government is in my view the Beast. Why anyone of religious conviction would honor the Beast makes no sense to me.

My leader is my Creator. There are less than a dozen natural principles coded into my humanity that are easy to follow. The first half provide the answer as to how to interact with my Creator. The second half of these principles provide the answers of how to deal with my fellow man. I've yet to successfully fulfill those few laws entirely. I think it's more important that I get those ten down pat before I worry about the laws made by the Beast.

 

[YukonGlocker]

This is why I view this group people call government as nothing but an organization of criminals in suits. These criminals the average Joe and Jane choose to be their masters come election time have no problem stealing from each paycheck we earn. "Thou shall not steal" comes to mind. If it is morally wrong for me to steal, how is it moral that voters can choose people to be their masters who will steal from me or you without our consent? And worse yet, use the money stolen from me to give to their fellow criminal gang members to buy weapons to be used against defenseless people around the world because those criminals seek to control other people. Look at how the innocent children in Gaza are being murdered day after day after day by criminals who are friends with the criminals people here vote into power. Sickening.

I see the entire thing coming back to 1 Samuel 7. People rejected God, decided to make a god in their image and called it government. Not only do people reject God as their rightful leader, they made themselves an idol. Basically, violating both the 1st and 2nd Commandments in one shot. The reality is that God owns everything in the universe. When Jesus said "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's", it seems he was essentially saying is that Caesar owned nothing because everything belongs to God. I get fed up with Christians who tell me that it is my duty to vote, to pay taxes and to give respect to thieves in suits. Government is in my view the Beast. Why anyone of religious conviction would honor the Beast makes no sense to me.

My leader is my Creator. There are less than a dozen natural principles coded into my humanity that are easy to follow. The first half provide the answer as to how to interact with my Creator. The second half of these principles provide the answers of how to deal with my fellow man. I've yet to successfully fulfill those few laws entirely. I think it's more important that I get those ten down pat before I worry about the laws made by the Beast.

So you're suggesting anarchy is the way to go?