Spoken like a true 'black-and-white-view-of-the-worlder' and forum manipulator But I would expect nothing less, or course.

I'm not dodging anything. The answer is no, I don't think socialized food is a very good idea. What are you trying to get at?

On the last part, thank you very much, I take pride in my consistency.

On the former, I was showing him the respect of simply asking whether I had understood his position correctly before moving on to tear it to shreds. Apparently, he doesn't like his position much either - this is why he answered my courtesy with yet another sophmoric attempt at obfuscation.

Board manipulator? Some people like golf.

You think socialized "food care" would restrict people's choices over what foods they can have right?

Yes, this would be one reason. I would point out though that in a socialized country this would not be nearly as pronounced as you're making it. You're explicitly defining your form of socialism as the government giving us exactly what we can eat (eg it would control obesity and end hunger). Real socialism wouldn't be as bad, but more likely than not it would still end up restricting our choices.

edit -- Btw I know you're going to disagree with this but what would you think if I said in America we have too many choices (for food)? There are so many brands and usually you just end up wasting time deciding which one you want to get based on price and how good it looks. I don't agree with this line of reasoning but this is what a lot of socialists would point out. In capitalism more choices means more competition = better quality product but this is just the capitalist mindset, in socialism it wouldn't work this way. Eg people would vote on what kinds of food gets produced and anyone is free to innovate for themselves (eg work in food, either as a career or temporarily). There's not directly a kind of check/balance on the system (besides the freewill of the public); and I'm sure even in this respect it is worse than capitalism, but it's not infinitely worse; you sacrifice some things for the benefits of others...

Ok, good.

Yes they would - they'd come up with something as assinine as that. This is typical of their way of thinking. They know better than you what is good for you. They don't want you to make decisions, they want someone smart and enlightened to make them for you. You might make mistakes. This is why the Democrats work their delegate system the way they do. Sure, they make a big show of letting the unwashed masses go through the motions of dropping their vote in a ballot box. But they have super-delegates in case the drones mess up and pick the wrong candidate. Enlightened big-whigs who can sway the vote the way it should go. Keep that in mine Friend.

OMG, I think I'm going to cry tears of pride and joy.

I don't think people would get to vote under that kind of system. The enlightened leaders on the council will decide for you. I like saurkraut and bleu cheese and pickled herring. Most of the mob doesn't like those things or think I need them and would vote against them to make room for what they think I need. Under our system, for those rare people like me who like pickled herring, there are just enough producers who're able to fill the niche and make a living at it, and everyone is happy.

Have you looked through the thread where I asked the marxists how their system would work if implemented exactly the way they want it. Would you want to live like that?

Here's a little exercise. Make a list for yourself of all the things that you enjoy, every last little thing in life that you'd be willing to work for. Once your list is complete, cross off all the things the majority of people would likely say you can live without - or that a government who has to fund all your health care and living expenses would think you can or should live without.

Those marxists will tell you you're being selfish and greedy for wanting those things. What they don't recognize, is when you work to earn the money to buy those things, you ARE serving society as well as yourself by being productive. Just because you're working to meet your own needs and wants doesn't negate the fact you're doing well for others.

Once you cross all those things off your list, do you have the same incentives to be productive?

Socialism, by definition, is a "democratic economy." It means that people, publicly, own the means of production and distribution, whereas in capitalism this is held privately (similar to a kind of dictatorship). I'm sure socialised healthcare, as an example, would not work this way but this is just because of current politics and the fact that this is much easier to implement. Some people argue that it's still socialist because the government is democratic and by extension any socialized industry would be as well, but I doubt this would actually happen. I was talking about a fully socialized economy in my example, one where it would be implemented completely (giving the members of the economy complete control over it).Maybe in a marxist economy this is how things would work. I think there would be more choices than you're expecting, but in the end there would be limits so your point is still valid. But like I was pointing out above in a socialist economy there wouldn't be these "people at the top" making all the decisions. This is more similar to the intermediate period in communism. In the end a communist economy has no government; it is complete anarchy, but communism is usually associated directly with state control of the economy through a dictatorship because this is, theoretically, the middle step between a non-communist economy and a communist economy.

Socialism is usually used pretty loosely. In today's context we are talking about government control of things (eg the economy is capitalist but certain institutions are socialized). But "idealistically" it means public control.

Veedo, you couldn't be more incorrect. Where are you getting your ideas?

(Note for the peanut gallery - I just exercised an unprecedented amount of restraint.)

First, on your misconception about capitalism: Capitalism and dictatorship are antithetical concepts. That means they are direct opposites. All a government has authority to do in purely capitalist system is protect people's individual liberties and rights. No one has to do anything they don't want to, and they can do anything they like provided it does not infringe on someone else's liberty. I'm interested in hearing an example of dictating in a capitalist system.

I'd also like to know where you got your definition "democratic economy" from. Semantics about theory aside, in reality, socialist economies are dictatorial.

Around the time you were born, the USSR, (United Soviet Socialist Republic) which was more communist than socialist came to a welcome end. Maybe you learned about it in school. Remember the wall? Hint: The wall wasn't there to keep people from sneaking in to take advantage of the good deal socialist system provide. It was to keep people from escaping.

In short, the more socialist the economy is, the less choices you have.

Once I'm satisfied you know what capitalism and socialism mean, both in theory and reality, we can continue.

I was not talking about the political system, I was comparing the economic systems to political systems.Like I said socialism is thrown around fairly loosely, probably because socialism is more of an umbrella term than anything else (communism is a type of socialism, but not all socialist systems are communist). I was talking about what people refer to as a purely socialist economy. The economic definition of such a system, if you get out your econ textbook, is public control / ownership of the means of production and distribution. Not to be rude but if you don't know what the means of production is I recommend looking this up. Capitalism likewise is characterized by private control of said means of production and distribution.

The goal of a socialist economy is to have a completely democratic economy, attained by, literally, voting, where the people themselves directly "decide" how to run things (not people "at the top"). Socialism as an economic system is independent from a political system but most socialists would want to see a democratic government as well.

Fascinating - I'm interested in hearing of a nation-state which is an example of this capitalist system you are describing. Judging from the whining we constantly get from various people about government doing more than just protecting people's liberties and rights, the USA surely doesn't qualify as a capitalist society by your definition, right? So what country does?

Are you saying it's a theoretical concept not in actual practice anywhere?

Of course capitalism is practiced in the USA. What planet have you been living on? Socialism is creeping in here and there - and where it has, there are poor results. Government schools for example: there is a reason the same liberals who refuse measures to allow all parents to choose while propping up government schools (to get support from the teacher's unions) send their own kids to private schools.

Anyway, yeah - if you want to see the benefits of capitalism in action, the USA is one of the best places to look.

I see - so what you were saying is "purely capitalist" (emphasis on the "purely"). Shouldn't that mean we should stop calling it capitalist in the same way so many will whine if we call it a democracy? ("It's not a democracy, it's a republic" - pedantic idiocy).

My point is it seems to me that the Government in your capitalist society does a lot more than 'protect liberty and rights' - they administer the place. In ultra brief format - they take taxes and spend on infrastructure and services, and make policy decisions on a wide range of issues (ie laws). Perhaps in your capitalist nirvana, roads would be privatised - toll booths on every street corner?

On your point on schools, this seems to exemplify the issue on hypocrisy I have made elsewhere not being such a dichotomous thing. One could say it is hypocritical for a parent to support the existence of public schools at all, but send their kids to private ones. But that is the narrow result of forcing it to be a yes/no concept. In reality, parents no doubt have a host of reasons they would do that - for example, put simply, they may support the existence of public schools, but as things currently are, they are not satisfied with the quality of the public school system, so in the interests of what they judge to be currently the best education for their kids, they send them to private school. Their position is more likely to be the public school system should be improved, and when it is, I will feel confident enough in it to send my kids to it.

Not because of capitalism, in spite of it.

I don't remember using the word hypocrite, I was just pointing out that the difference between how well the private sector does something, in this case education, and the government, is so stark, even those who make it a career goal to prop up the government schools by limiting choice prefer to send their own kids.


Here's how I look at things like that - when making a decision myself where there's a question of principle like that, I ask myself "if everyone did what I'm about to do, would that be good or bad?"

For example - I can justify throwing a apple core out my window driving down the street - apple cores are natural, they fall from trees, they disintegrate, fertilize the soil, etc. What if everyone decided to fertilize the soil? What if everyone decided to throw uneaten food out their car window along the road, or wherever they finished with it?

I like clean, clutter-free roads. One apple core isn't going to change that - there may even be a nice apple tree along the way someday to pretty things up even more. But I think its wrong nonetheless to discard food from the window - if everyone did, the roads would stink, there's be varmints running around, etc. So I don't do it. I behave as I would like others to behave.

Now, your pro-government school politician: I don't blame him for wanting the best education for his child, and its perfectly understandable he'd prefer quality education over government school. Knowing that, I'd like to seem him distribute taxpayers' money in such a way the taxpayers could make the same choice he did until the government school system is fixed. Oh yeah, but if that happened, no one would go to the government school, and taxpayers would choose their tax dollars go towards the quality private schools that are competing for their tax dollars, rather than former government mandated/created monopoly that is the government school system.

Gee, where does that leave us?

Knowing that when there is competition and choice, quality of options improves. (my initial point when I used schools as an example)