The Evils of Socialism


Tecumsehsbones
#1
Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.


So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?

So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?
So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?

No, they're people who don't understand what the word "socialism" means, and whose definition thereof ("taking money from one for distribution to others") is ill-thought.

By their definition, even having an army, or courts, is "socialist," because it takes money from some who will never use those things.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+4
#4  Top Rated Post
The problem is defining socialism. I also think there's a pretty sizable difference between having some social programs and systems in place and being a completely socialistic country.
The former helps people in need, or at least it's supposed to anyway. The latter punishes those who dare try to get ahead.

The thing is, there are a number of systems that look great, on paper. But once you introduce that variable known as the human element, things can go to shit pretty damn fast. Communism is a perfect example of that. On paper it is arguably the purest form of govt. However, I think it can only work when you have small, relatively like-minded population. The other issue is when you introduce a centralized ruling govt, you pretty much betray the spirit and ideals of true communism.
But in the harshest reality, you can call yourself whatever you want, it still doesn't mean that's what you are. For example, "democratic socialism" is a term that does little more than attempt to put lipstick on a pig. It's still communism no matter what they call it. Hell, North Korea calls itself a "democratic people's republic", which is basically three lies for the price of one.
Democratic socialists insist the only way to true fairness is a single class system. Anyone who buys that is a complete fool. As long as there is a ruling govt, there will still be two classes; the ruling elite and everyone else whose quality of life will depend entirely on the whim of their socialistic masters.

Socialists also like making people dependent on govt. Who else would think it's a great idea to give otherwise able-bodied, able-minded people free money to sit around and do nothing? Mincome anyone?

The idea of full-on socialism is also disastrous for welfare states with open or very porous borders. Norway is a very socialistic/welfare state. But you'll also notice they didn't join the EU so somebody else could force unreasonable immigration quotas on them. Hmmm, I wonder if they're a bunch of xenophobic fascists like those damn pro-Brexit Britons.
 
MHz
#5
The evils of capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-the-children
Yemen: up to 85,000 young children dead from starvation



Save the Children condemns ‘preventable’ deaths of under-fives and calls for end to war
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The evils of capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-the-children
Yemen: up to 85,000 young children dead from starvation
Save the Children condemns ‘preventable’ deaths of under-fives and calls for end to war

This is not an example of either capitalism or Marxism this is an example of religious dominance and Totalitarianism
 
Hoid
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.

the military
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1 / -1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

The problem is defining socialism.

Funny, it's not a problem for me.

Technically, the definition is "worker ownership of the means of production."

Realistically, it's a meaningless term stupid a-holes bellow whenever there's a government program or regulation they don't like, in their typical Chicken Little overgeneralization.

Quote:

I also think there's a pretty sizable difference between having some social programs and systems in place and being a completely socialistic country.

There are no completely socialistic countries, so I don't see that as a problem.

Quote:

The former helps people in need, or at least it's supposed to anyway. The latter punishes those who dare try to get ahead.

No, it taxes those who have gotten ahead for the benefit of people in need.

You're starting to slip back into the absuridist view.

Quote:

The thing is, there are a number of systems that look great, on paper. But once you introduce that variable known as the human element, things can go to shit pretty damn fast.

Of course. That's obvious. The problem is that, instead of debating whether a given program or law is sensible and achieves its goals, a certain sector of the population chooses to bellow "SOSHULISM!" and cram their empty heads into empty MAGA hats.

Quote:

Communism is a perfect example of that. On paper it is arguably the purest form of govt. However, I think it can only work when you have small, relatively like-minded population. The other issue is when you introduce a centralized ruling govt, you pretty much betray the spirit and ideals of true communism.

When you have any government at all, you don't have communism. Communism is like the perfect vacuum. It's a theoretical concept that does not exist.

Quote:

But in the harshest reality, you can call yourself whatever you want, it still doesn't mean that's what you are. For example, "democratic socialism" is a term that does little more than attempt to put lipstick on a pig. It's still communism no matter what they call it. Hell, North Korea calls itself a "democratic people's republic", which is basically three lies for the price of one.

Yeah, but it's a great way to yell instead of thinking.

Quote:

Democratic socialists insist the only way to true fairness is a single class system. Anyone who buys that is a complete fool. As long as there is a ruling govt, there will still be two classes; the ruling elite and everyone else whose quality of life will depend entirely on the whim of their socialistic masters.

Depends on your definition of "class." If you mean groups of people who are born with, and cannot lose, different legal status, the United States is a classless society. If you mean "how much money you have," the United States has 328 million "classes." If you group people according to some arbitrary standard, you're arbitrary. And lazy. And stupid.

Quote:

Socialists also like making people dependent on govt. Who else would think it's a great idea to give otherwise able-bodied, able-minded people free money to sit around and do nothing? Mincome anyone?

And Real Americans and Old Stock Canadians want people who can't make it without help to die in a ditch.

This is pretty much what happens when you define your enemies with lazy, overblown generalizations.

Quote:

The idea of full-on socialism is also disastrous for welfare states with open or very porous borders. Norway is a very socialistic/welfare state. But you'll also notice they didn't join the EU so somebody else could force unreasonable immigration quotas on them. Hmmm, I wonder if they're a bunch of xenophobic fascists like those damn pro-Brexit Britons.

I'll not comment except to wish you and Blackleaf great joy in jerking each other off.

I find it interesting that you're willing to go on at length about what "they" want, but never quite mention what you want.
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; 2 weeks ago at 07:59 PM..
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You're starting to slip back into the absuridist view.

Denmark: If you own a home your overall basic tax rate is 60%. If you rent it's a bit less. Any overtime, bonuses or anything else that adds extra to your paycheque/wallet over and above your normal pay is taxed at 90%. Of course when it comes to taxing overtime pay, Canada isn't much better. In fact there are quite a few ad hoc arrangements between employer and employee where when the employee would normally get paid overtime, he gets paid straight time and banks the rest to use take an extra day off here and there.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And Real Americans and Old Stock Canadians want people who can't make it without help to die in a ditch.

Speaking of making lazy, over-blown generalizations.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

This is pretty much what happens when you define your enemies with lazy, overblown generalizations.



Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'll not comment except to wish you and Blackleaf great joy in jerking each other off.

So no answer huh? That's okay, most people who push socialism go through get lengths to avoid answering that question.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I find it interesting that you're willing to go on at length about what "they" want, but never quite mention what you want.

Then maybe you should have given it a different thread title. You didn't ask what I wanted, or anyone else for that matter.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

No, they're people who don't understand what the word "socialism" means, and whose definition thereof ("taking money from one for distribution to others") is ill-thought.

By their definition, even having an army, or courts, is "socialist," because it takes money from some who will never use those things.


So... by definition, ancient civilizations were Socialists.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?

So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?




No. What it appears is that the definition and history of Socialism is evolving.



This is the definition of Socialism....




Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.



Now we know that this would never stand on its own so Socialist now say everything good in society is because of Socialism. Police, Fire Departments, roads, schools, etc. is because of Socialism and Socialists. If you are against Socialism then you MUST be against all good things that governments provide.



Take Sen. Warren when she made the statement that successful people and businesses became successful because of what government did for them such as roads and education. It completely ignores the fact that roads and schools are paid for with the taxes levied upon the taxpayers AND businesses and corporations. The government did not provide these things on it's own.
Last edited by EagleSmack; 2 weeks ago at 09:49 AM..
 
DaSleeper
+1
#12
Has true socialism ever existed anywhere in this world?
Or is it just another chimera?
 
MHz
#13
I didn't see any comment on how natural resources are used to generate more income for the state than for the foreign businesses that develop the resources for their use outside of the nation. The IMF is not a socialist entity unless you admit they work only for the World Bank and their only desire is to the World Bank. Create an economic disaster that starves many of the least important citizens and they offer a solution that puts them into perpetual debt.
A socialist Nation would try to be as independent as possible while the IMF makes sure they cannot even grow enough food for themselves because 'denial of food' is one of the first economic weapons used by the IMF using their 'political entity' the UN.

What was Libya before NATO came calling??
https://www.africanexponent.com/post...e-to-live-2746
Education and medical treatment were free
Newlyweds received U.S $50,000 from the government
Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project
Libya had no external debt and had reserves of $150 billion most of which were frozen globally
The price of petrol was $0,14 per litre
Having a home was considered a human right
Gender equality actually a reality
The Human Development Index was better than two-thirds of the countries reported on
People had enough food
Privatization of all Libyan oil to every citizen


The improvements made by NATO.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...073901622.html
The country's deterioration has led many inside and out of the country to question whether the country was better off during Gaddafi's 42-year-long reign.
'Dream of return'
For one group, however, there is no hint of regret over the late leader's demise.
The self-styled "Brother Leader" left little room for dissenting political expression, and those who dared align themselves with opposition political movements risked imprisonment or death.
Spurred by the atmosphere of repression, thousands of Libyans fled the country seeking new homes in other Arab states or further afield in Europe or the US.


The visit is to confirm the war against then is getting the desired results. Not only foes starvation punish the least important it sends a clear message to the rest of the world what resisting UN guidelines will get you. Step #1, accept the IMF loan (to fix the same things they had wrecked through lack of spare parts of bombing by a NATO friendly entity who do what they are told or the same underhanded means would be used against them.
His visit a year ago should have resulted in the same conditions that exist today were there a year ago and when no improvements are made that has to be taken as part of the 'master plan' and the UN reports are confirming that both the war and the sanctions are doing just what they are intended to accomplish.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/2...ass-starvation

U.N. aid chief Mark Lowcock will travel to Yemen this week amid intense diplomacy to end a war that has pushed millions to the brink of famine.
The three-day visit beginning Thursday will allow the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs to see first-hand the world's worst humanitarian crisis, a UN statement said Wednesday.
U.N. peace envoy Martin Griffiths is hoping to bring the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Huthi rebels to Sweden in the coming days for negotiations on ending the three-year conflict.
At least 8 million people are at risk of starvation in Yemen, but UN aid officials fear four million more will face mass hunger if the fighting continues.
Lowcock, who last visited Yemen in October 2017, will hold talks with officials in the rebel-held capital of Sanaa and in government-controlled Aden.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/2...hting-in-yemen

U.N. aid chief Mark Lowcock appealed Thursday for a halt to fighting in Yemen amid intense diplomacy to end a war that has pushed millions to the brink of famine.
"I'd like to see a cessation of hostilities, especially around the key infrastructure, especially around Hodeida," Lowcock told reporters after arriving in the rebel-held capital Sanaa.
Under heavy international pressure, Saudi-backed pro-government forces have largely suspended a five-month offensive on the insurgent-held port city of Hodeida, a key entry point for imports and aid.
U.N. agencies say 14 million Yemenis are at risk of starvation and the closure of the port would exacerbate the humanitarian crisis gripping the impoverished Arabian Peninsula country.
"I have come because I am very concerned about the humanitarian situation here, which has deteriorated since I was here last," Lowcock said.
"I'd like to see the environment in which the aid system operates, made easier for the aid agencies.
"I would like to see stronger economic support, more resources injected into the economy, salaries paid, more foreign exchange so that ordinary people have more money to buy the essentials to survive."
Lowcock will spend three days in Yemen to see first-hand the world's worst humanitarian crisis, according to the U.N.
U.N. peace envoy Martin Griffiths is hoping to bring the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Iran-aligned Huthi rebels to Sweden in the coming days for negotiations on ending the more than three-year conflict.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Has true socialism ever existed anywhere in this world?
Or is it just another chimera?

USSR was always held as the beacon of socialism, Under Lennon he tried to stay true to Marxist socialism, but it morphed into a dictatorship under the guise of communist socialism and failed due to bankruptcy.


How can it possibly work in it's purist form? The people (Gov.) owns everything, collects all the finances, you are chosen to your position by metrics and testing, your allotted housing, pay, credits to your allotted tier in life, no chance to advance unless voted on by the collective eh MHz. The mix of capitalism with deemed essential social services is the right way to go, you can't let people starve, but still have to be given an incentive to better their lives.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I didn't see any comment on how natural resources are used to generate more income for the state than for the foreign businesses that develop the resources for their use outside of the nation. The IMF is not a socialist entity unless you admit they work only for the World Bank and their only desire is to the World Bank. Create an economic disaster that starves many of the least important citizens and they offer a solution that puts them into perpetual debt.
A socialist Nation would try to be as independent as possible while the IMF makes sure they cannot even grow enough food for themselves because 'denial of food' is one of the first economic weapons used by the IMF using their 'political entity' the UN.
What was Libya before NATO came calling.

This is your beacon of socialism Phuck me your twisted.
 
Hoid
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

USSR was always held as the beacon of socialism,

No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.

It later became a horribly failed socialist state.

Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.

A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.
It later became a horribly failed socialist state.
Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.
A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.

Yes under Stalin No under Lenin

Here we go again Hoid off to school for you (I hate these multi thread same subject crap)



LINK

Quote:

By the 1920s, social democracy and communism had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement.[36] By this time, socialism emerged as "the most influential secular movement of the twentieth century, worldwide. It is a political ideology (or world view), a wide and divided political movement"[37] and while the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model , some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism[38][39][40] or a non-planned administrative or command economy.[41][42] Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, some socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism.[43]

Quote:

The modern definition and usage of "socialism" settled by the 1860s, becoming the predominant term among the group of words "co-operative", "mutualist" and "associationist", which had previously been used as synonyms. The term "communism" also fell out of use during this period, despite earlier distinctions between socialism and communism from the 1840s.[50] An early distinction between socialism and communism was that the former aimed to only socialise production while the latter aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).[51] However, Marxists employed the term "socialism" in place of "communism" by 1888, which had come to be considered an old-fashion synonym for socialism. It was not until 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution that "socialism" came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[52]

Quote:

A distinction between "communist" and "socialist" as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, where communist came to specifically mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Leninism, Bolshevism and later Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[54]

Quote:

Second International
As the ideas of Marx and Engels took on flesh, particularly in central Europe, socialists sought to unite in an international organisation. In 1889 (the centennial of the French Revolution of 1789), the Second International was founded, with 384 delegates from twenty countries representing about 300 labour and socialist organisations

Quote:

By 1917, the patriotism of World War I changed into political radicalism in most of Europe, the United States and Australia. Other socialist parties from around the world who were beginning to gain importance in their national politics in the early 20th century included the Italian Socialist Party, the French Section of the Workers' International, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the Socialist Party of America in the United States, the Argentinian Socialist Party and the Chilean Partido Obrero Socialista.


So you see Hoid Russia/Soviets were indeed regarded as the Beacon to Socialism in the early 20th century

The Nordic Model is being discussed in the other thread Hoid so to further your education go take a gander
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+4
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.
It later became a horribly failed socialist state.
Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.
A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.

Norway? You mean that country full of White natties who refused to join the EU? In fact, they held two referenda, one on 1972 and again in 1994. Both times the people voted NOT to join. Hell, they won't even let economic migrants stay. You see Hoid, Norway practices a form of National Socialism. Plus, Norway CLEARLY believes in national and border sovereignty and WILL enforce it, thus they are a bunch of nazis according to the sub-moronic metric of the ALT-left.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Norway? You mean that country full of White natties who refused to join the EU? In fact, they held two referenda, one on 1972 and again in 1994. Both times the people voted NOT to join. Hell, they won't even let economic migrants stay. You see Hoid, Norway practices a form of National Socialism. Plus, Norway CLEARLY believes in national and border sovereignty and WILL enforce it, thus they are a bunch of nazis according to the sub-moronic metric of the ALT-left.


It is hilarious how the White Liberals hold up Lilly White Norway as a model society. The White Liberal Alt-Left is nothing but a bunch of goose stepping white supremacists. What a bunch of Xenos.


*snicker*
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote:

the United States is a classless society.

No argument here.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Denmark: If you own a home your overall basic tax rate is 60%. If you rent it's a bit less. Any overtime, bonuses or anything else that adds extra to your paycheque/wallet over and above your normal pay is taxed at 90%. Of course when it comes to taxing overtime pay, Canada isn't much better. In fact there are quite a few ad hoc arrangements between employer and employee where when the employee would normally get paid overtime, he gets paid straight time and banks the rest to use take an extra day off here and there.

Thank you for admitting that neither Denmark nor Canada is "socialist."

Quote:

Speaking of making lazy, over-blown generalizations.

Yes, I was pointing out your lazy, overblown generalization by responding in kind.

Sorry you missed that.

Quote:

So no answer huh? That's okay, most people who push socialism go through get lengths to avoid answering that question.

Not capable of an answer, since there are no "full-blown socialist countries."

Quote:

Then maybe you should have given it a different thread title. You didn't ask what I wanted, or anyone else for that matter.

I wouldn't bother, since you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself unable to say exactly what it is you want.
 
MHz
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

No argument here.

'Clueless' as well rather than it was misspelled.
 
Dixie Cup
Conservative
+3
#23
If there has "never been a full blown socialist country" it's likely because "pure" socialism doesn't work. There are too many greedy, power hungry people out there for it to work as "ideologically" stated.


Governments cannot be trusted to do what is best for all concerned and, as is evidenced by the best governance we have today (Capitalism), those in government want to ensure that they get what is best for them first, citizens be damned. So while capitalism is not perfect, it's better than socialism simply because if you work hard enough, you will be rewarded. Not so in a socialist system - you have to share.....everything!


JMHO
 
Hoid
#24
capitalism is an economic model not a political one.

their is no pure capitalist society and never has been.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

No argument here.

"Very well, I accept your surrender."
--Westley, The Princess Bride
 
MHz
+1
#26
Pick whatever name your want, the fiat bank system is set up so there is only one winner and they aren't the smartest ones in the room on any day let alone all the time.
The Uncensored History of George H.W. "Rubbers" Bush: Daddy Prescott, BBH, Hitler & Margaret Sanger

1. There Is No Spoon – In the popular 1999 film The Matrix, written by Lana and Andy Wachowski (“The Wachowski Brothers”), the protagonist, Neo, has the following conversation with a gifted child who can bend spoons with his mind:
Child: Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Child: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Child: Then you’ll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
There is a difference between an abstraction and an abstract concept. “Money” is an abstraction in the same way that “container” encompasses both a bottle and a jar. Abstractions are artifacts of language that generally describe the world. In contrast, an abstract concept is the mental representation of an idea, such as liberty. Abstract concepts are literally ideas that exist in the human mind. Law, for example, expresses the concept of justice but an arbitrary law is not just merely because it is law. Unjust laws certainly exist. Declaring that a stone is a seafaring vessel does not imbue it with the ability to float on water, even if it can skip on the surface if it has enough spin. Such a declaration would be an illogical misuse of language masking an obvious absurdity. Nonetheless, the same obvious absurdity underlies fiat currencies. The erroneous conflation of “money”, which is an abstraction, and “value”, which is an abstract concept, is an example of sophistry; a trick of words played on unsophisticated minds. In fact, fiat currencies which exist today, not principally as notes or coins, but as electronic digits in computers, have no value.
2. Coercion – Coercion characterizes fiat currencies because most people would not accept them unless forced to do so against their will. In the United States, for example, the replacement of gold-backed money in 1933 required the use of legal force (criminal penalties of $10,000, ten years in prison, or both) to compel U.S. citizens to accept irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes in place of gold certificates.
3. Rent Seeking – Fiat currency schemes extract economic rents by forcing commerce to take place in the fiat currency system. Since human beings trade with one another to survive, the ability to freely exchange value for value is a natural right having the same moral foundation as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a marketplace based on voluntary arrangements, there is no middleman extracting an economic rent in exchange for permission to participate in commerce.
4. Immorality – Fiat currency schemes are immoral because the primary thing that makes them acceptable is coercion. Forcing people to accept artificial money that has no objective value against their will and self interest is an immoral act. Additionally, fiat currency schemes allow those who control the currency to redistribute wealth by altering the availability, quantity and distribution of the currency, which is little more than legalized theft.
5. Central Planning – Since fiat currencies are based on coercive, rather than voluntary market relationships, a central authority is required that has the power to eliminate competing currencies, i.e., to establish a monopoly. Central economic planning is not only anti-democratic and the antithesis of a free market, but also inevitably fails. Human society is not blessed with the omniscient and infallible individuals required to make financial and economic decisions in place of the decisions of millions of individuals, households, entrepreneurs and businesses. The record of history, e.g., the USSR, is absolutely clear. Central planning of an economy produces a never ending stream of unintended consequences that lead to never ending interventions and that ultimately destroy economic activity.
6. Price Instability – Fiat currencies, because they require relatively insignificant physical economic inputs, have no direct relationship to the survival requirements of human life. Since it is decided by central planners, the quantity of currency in a fiat currency scheme is always and inevitably incorrect. This causes price instability and artificially stimulates or depresses economic activity as a function of how much currency is produced and of how it is distributed. As a practical matter, price stability can never be achieved in a fiat currency scheme.
7. Economic Volatility – Since fiat currencies are loosely coupled to physical economic activity in the objective world, they tend to become increasingly de-coupled and eventually “un-tethered” over time. An economy is the aggregate of millions of independent, individual human actors and there is no way that those responsible for a fiat currency can guess the correct quantity, although they can recognize incorrect quantities after the fact by their consequences, e.g., credit booms, recessions, large-scale price bubbles and economic collapses, such as the Great Depression, which began only sixteen years after the U.S. Federal Reserve was established. Of course, economies can be volatile for many reasons. The effect of fiat currencies, however, is to greatly magnify economic volatility.
8. Currency Debasement – Voltaire famously wrote that “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value—zero.” Fiat currencies issued by governments or central banks represent intangible, subjective concepts of value like “full faith and credit” but the currency itself has no lasting value. Specifically, fiat currencies have a built-in tendency to decline in purchasing power over time as more currency is produced, particularly in fractional reserve and debt-based fiat currency schemes. In debt-based fiat currency schemes, the currency must be constantly inflated or a deflationary vicious circle (a collapse of debt) will set in. Those responsible for the currency predictably produce more than is necessary to maintain stable prices or to sustain stable economic activity, e.g., to diminish the risk of deflation, for political promises and favors, to wage war, etc. Price instability and economic volatility are the result. Currency debasement eventually undermines the basic economic structure of society. In The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), John Maynard Keynes wrote:
“Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
9. Wealth Redistribution – Arbitrarily increasing the quantity of currency in an economy distorts the distribution of money and, therefore, redistributes purchasing power, effectively stealing wealth from the majority, e.g., savers and wage workers, to serve the interests of a privileged minority. Redistribution of wealth, as opposed to production of wealth, causes a net loss of wealth to society. Government deficit spending, although it may be motivated by good intentions, changes the quantity of currency and results in currency debasement. Thus, government deficit spending operates as a dishonest, hidden tax on savers and wage workers. In his well known 1966 essay, Gold and Economic Freedom, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, wrote:
“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
10. Concentration of Wealth – Over time, fiat currency schemes cause wealth and property to accrue to those who enjoy the extraordinary privilege of creating the currency, thus increasing the concentration of wealth in society. Extreme concentration of wealth is economically and ultimately politically destabilizing. An individual with a one million dollar income, for example, will not buy as many consumer products, cars or appliances as ten households with incomes of one hundred thousand dollars. In his remarks at a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (August 28, 199, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan pointed out that:
“Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. Thus, we need also to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume…”
11. Moral Hazard – Baron Acton observed in 1887 that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Since fiat currencies are created by monetary monopolies ex nihilo, e.g., through loan contracts, they provide a legal means of obtaining something for virtually nothing. As a result, those responsible for fiat currencies enjoy almost unlimited influence over economic and, therefore, political life. Sadly, human beings can never be good stewards of a currency system that provides one group in society with the means to obtain something for nothing. In fact, societies dominated by immoral fiat currency schemes eventually develop a something-for-nothing culture; a culture of entitlement in which, rather than producing wealth, everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.
12. Corruption and Cronyism – As a consequence of moral hazard, fiat currencies tend to encourage cronyism and corruption and ultimately produce a culture of corruption. The Roman poet Juvenal wrote “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”). History is replete with the horrors of absolute power and with monetary abuses resulting in economic collapse. Just as democide has been a leading cause of death in the last one hundred years, fiat currencies have been a leading cause of poverty. Fiat currency schemes redistribute and concentrate wealth, resulting in a tiny and exceedingly wealthy minority, but they do not produce wealth. Francisco d’Anconia, one of the central characters in the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, explains the following in his famous “money speech”:
“…Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce... Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you need to survive tomorrow… Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values… Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims…”
13. Confidence Failure – Since the value of fiat currencies is essentially subjective, maintaining the perception of “value” in the face of economic decline and despite rising prices can be challenging. Fiat currencies are ultimately dependent on confidence and trust in those responsible for the currency. When fiat currencies are abused, confidence fails and they revert to their intrinsic value (zero). Thus, monetary policy in a fiat currency scheme focuses directly on maintaining confidence. Behavioral economics, for example, has become a primary tool of monetary and economic policy implementation. As a consequence, economic reporting by governments and central banks, and by the news media, does not reflect an objective viewpoint. Management of perception has the effect of influencing the subjective mental states of those who use a particular fiat currency so as to maintain the perception of “value”. However, in the best case, perception management is one-sided “spin”, and, in the worst case, it is propaganda that is contrary to fact and that simply prevents ordinary people from recognizing the steps they need to take in order to protect their financial interests against currency debasement and other risks associated with fiat currencies. Nonetheless, cognitive dissonance (a psychological tension between conflicting cognitions) can result in the sudden collapse of fiat currencies when economic conditions deteriorate sufficiently or when prices rise too quickly, i.e., the spell of value subjectivism is broken.
14. Counterparty Risk – The “value” of fiat currencies requires trust in counterparties, but trust, like confidence, is an ephemeral, subjective mental state. In the objective world, agreements between governments and central banks and those who rely on their fiat currency schemes can be arbitrarily modified or broken. In fact, they are implicitly broken whenever a currency is debased. The promises of deposed governments and failed banks become instantly worthless.
15. Transaction Settlement – A transaction in commodity money is a direct exchange of value for value. When a fiat currency transaction is performed, one party holds fiat currency and the other is the recipient of goods or services, but, like a retroactive breach of contract, the value of the fiat currency can be changed and may even become zero. Since there is always a residual third party to the transaction, i.e., a government or central bank, transactions remain unsettled.
Fiat currency schemes are philosophically misguided, fundamentally immoral and ultimately unstable. Fiat currencies are premised on value subjectivism and erroneously conflate money and value. They represent a mere medium of exchange and rely on unstable subjective mental states such as confidence and trust. As a result, they are ultimately fragile and prone to fail suddenly when those using them wake from the dream of value subjectivism.
Fiat currencies are immoral because they are forced on people against their will and contrary to their self interest and because they are a mechanism for legalized theft through currency debasement. Monetary monopolies extract economic rents by holding hostage the rights of individuals to freely exchange value for value. Central economic planning, redistribution of wealth and concentration of wealth undermine economic activity and encourage a culture of entitlement. Since fiat currency schemes are the source of exorbitant power, they engender extreme moral hazard, produce cronyism and corruption and foster a culture of corruption.
Fiat currencies are subject to the decisions of central planners and are invariably debased producing price instability and increasing economic volatility. Governments and central banks that promulgate fiat currency schemes remain as perpetual counterparties to transactions posing a constant and unlimited risk. Resulting transactions are not fully settled because the value of the currency can be arbitrarily altered after the fact.
History has shown that fiat currencies are always debased and that confidence in them eventually fails causing vast economic disruptions, losses of wealth, social and political chaos and even loss of life. The inevitable disasters caused by fiat currency schemes are usually followed by a return to commodity money but, once stability is achieved, a new fiat currency scheme is put in place repeating an unnecessary and destructive cycle that benefits few and harms many. Ironically, while commodity money is denigrated by those who benefit from fiat currency schemes, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted as recently as 1999 that “Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Fiat money in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.”
Defenders of fiat currency schemes claim that they promote stable prices and moderate economic volatility. In fact, the opposite is true. Fiat currencies not only destabilize economies but undermine the moral basis of society. Without exception, in every historical case when a currency has been de-coupled from the objective world, i.e., from commodity money, the result has been disaster. Fiat currency schemes guarantee unending monetary and resulting economic, social and political chaos marked by brief periods of calm between inevitable abuses, bubbles and collapses.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Hospitals.
Public education.
Police.
Fire and emergency medical services.
Health care.
Food and drug safety.
Consumer product safety.
Old age pensions.
Roads and bridges.
Sewers.
And, depending on your definition. . .
Laws.

Yes, these do constitutes different aspects of socialism. Blame the following for believing in all that:

Jefferson believed in free education

Washington believed in roads and bridges

Thomas Paine believed in old age pension/social security

Alexander Hamilton believed in federal government building up the infrastructure.
Significantly, not one of these socialists believed in a standing army while they believed in separation of church and state.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Yes, these do constitutes different aspects of socialism. Blame the following for believing in all that:

Jefferson believed in free education

Washington believed in roads and bridges

Thomas Paine believed in old age pension/social security

Alexander Hamilton believed in federal government building up the infrastructure.
Significantly, not one of these socialists believed in a standing army while they believed in separation of church and state.

Governing for the common good and socialism are two different kettle of fish .
 
MHz
#29
Nothing is free.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

Yes, these do constitutes different aspects of socialism. Blame the following for believing in all that:

Jefferson believed in free education

Washington believed in roads and bridges

Thomas Paine believed in old age pension/social security

Alexander Hamilton believed in federal government building up the infrastructure.
Significantly, not one of these socialists believed in a standing army while they believed in separation of church and state.


They also owned slaves... thanks to Socialism I suppose.
 

Similar Threads

245
Socialism works
by whitedog | Sep 11th, 2016
10
419
Socialism Is the Only Way
by darkbeaver | Jan 31st, 2008