It Appears That Bill Maher Doesn't Understand What Socialism Actually Is

So, now your argument isn't that taxation is theft, it's that taxation beyond a certain level is theft. You realize that is logically inconsistent? And no, I wouldn't need my guns if you gave up everything taxation has provided. You're not my next-door neighbor, so you couldn't get to me by hopping the fence. You'd need to travel using public property. You seem to be a hypocrite belch. I mean, we all are to an extent, but at least I can form a logical argument devoid of bias.

 

History opposes you. Sorry, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Your making a similar (though not nearly as egregious) mistake as many who use the terms "Socialism/Social Democracy" in that you do not define your terms.

Social democracy is Socialism so your statement "confusing socialism with social democracy" is rally confusing.

Any political/economic system that has wealth redistribution of any kind can be considered to contain elements of socialism.

Taxing a bit more to give to the poor is not just "social democracy". Its Socialism.

Military, Police, Roads, and almost every Gov't institution ... Socialism, Socialism and Socialism.

Socialism is not necessarily about who owns the productive assets in society.

Regardless - if you are taxing something it can be said that the Gov't has part ownership in anything you do that is being taxed.

Any form of wealth redistribution via taxation, regardless of ownership, is Socialism.

This is why one needs to define what kind of socialism one is referring to when using the word.

Socialist could refer to Communism or it could refer to Gov't taxation in a free market economy.

Hence the need to define one's terms.

 

No.

You brought up the constitution, and I admitted that it does allow for taxation.

Honestly, I think you'll find that if you give up on socialist dogma., you will have a hard time defending your position. This means giving up on concepts like "public property".

 

Yeah, building libraries, public universities and interstate highways, and funding education, police and the military just gives it all to underachievers.

 

I would refer you to Nozick for why ownership matters. Taxing income might seem like it's not theft because you aren't taking assets, but then even with that pittance that they permit you to keep, you are unable to have voluntary interactions with others without those assets being partially seized.

Social democracy I find far more odious than a proper form of socialism. Even as a full blown capitalist who is opposed to most all government interference, I have little issue with socialist communities. Good on them in fact.

I take massive issue with places like Vienna, where 3/4ers of the population is in public housing, taxes are absurd, etc. That's what I cannot stand. The Paris Commune? Catalonian socialism? No issues, so long as they permit me the same diversity.

If in 50 years that planet unites under global social democracy, I might just put a bullet in my brain.

 

You're not making much sense belch. I have no clue what you're trying to say. What socialist dogma are you talking about? Your ideas are whacked. Without public property, I could surround you, starve you out, then have you sign over your deed in exchange for a sandwich. Then, since you're now an invader, I shoot you. Isn't anarchy fun? You haven't thought these things through belch. That's alright. We're all weird in one way or another.

 

In the USA, roads are built by various levels of government. Particular pieces of construction and design work are contracted out. But, it will be government that is making the decisions on where, how and if the road is built, how it is funded, what standards are met, etc. It will be the government that acquires the land and rights of way. It will be the government that determines how the project will be funded, what taxes, whether bonds are used, how much will be contributed by the various divisions of government (federal, state and the various more local governmental agencies). It will be government that decides whether a vote of the people will be required for the project to commence.

That fact that the guy leaning on a shovel wasn't directly employed by the government is irrelevant. All construction involves contracting out pieces of the work.

 

Yes! If the socialists could allow themselves the luxury of thinking outside the socialist box, and allowing capitalists to live next door to them, they'd have to give up on it.

"what about public property"? What about it? That's socialist garbage, right? So you're gonna take everything you can and say "well, we own it all so you're stuck where you are"?

Really? What if capitalists did the same, and refused to allow you on to their property? Same thing, and the socialists would be rightly angry.

 

Maher was simply speaking to Americans, who have been taught that that a Commons, financed by taxation on income derived from capitalism is Socialism. Americans, especially those on the right confuse a Commons, that is in the public interest, that is a collective endeavor, for the common good, with Socialism. But many Americans have been half mis-educated to see anything other than unregulated capitalism as socialism, and some will call in communism. And they are sadly, because of ideological beliefs, incapable of being educated. That is where we are as a nation.

There has been a tremendous move, since Reagan brought back Gilded Age Neoliberalism, to privatize what once was the Commons. We used to have some State Universities that were tuition free. The expansion of our Commons occurred under the Progressivism of FDR. He is called a socialist and even a communist today by the right side. And those words are loaded words in America, and very negative words after decades of propaganda that intended to make unregulated capitalism the only kind of capitalism worth exercising. So then, regulated capitalism is also called socialism here in America. And these people, the propagandists can get away with it because many americans are just not an educated people.

So Maher was just speaking within the context of what America is. If he would have tried to tell the people that socialism is not a capitalistic economy, with a sufficient Commons, they would have called him a liar. And he would not have gotten the laughs. For in America, a Commons, is socialism. And you will never convince those that hold this idea because of an ideology that can only exist due to its disconnection from reality, any differently.

While real socialism produces unemployment, neoliberal capitalism also produces it. Unemployment is built into capitalism. For it never takes every worker under capitalism to produce consumption. Especially given automation, computers, and robotics. So what to do with these displaced people? The right side does not acknowledge the fact of the matter, and they simply see the unemployed in a modern economy, as lazy, not wanting to work. Again, the result of an ideological belief, that is based upon a disconnect from reality.

We no longer look at an economic model, as being structured to provide jobs, living wage jobs for the greatest number of people. An economy is not longer seen as the device that allows the greatest number to survive and prosper by their work. That changed. We now structure an economy to only max out profits, and do not care if that economy actually provides the needed resources for a nation's people. This change came about with the return of Neoliberalism, which had created the Gilded Age disparity in income before the great depression. We called this, "getting gov't out of the way" as Reagan voiced it. What that meant of course was to returning to an earlier philosophy, that placed only the maximization of profits of the top, as having any importance, along with the lie, that if we allowed this again, it would trickle down, and work out better for the middle class, and even make the middle stronger, more prosperous. Of course, we knew it did not do that when this philosophy was used and created the Gilded Age, but conservatism is an ideology without a memory of the past. But this again speaks to being half mis-educated as Bernard Shaw put it.

 

I know why you didn't discriminate between "commons" and socialism.

I think we all do. There isn't any difference. And that, my friend, is why you wasted a lot of letters.

You could have said something like "commons is not socialism because..." and we could have had something to deal with, but... you didn't.

and we know why you didn't.

 

How does ANY of that relate to Social Security/medicare/decent work place conditions/minimum wages...benefits/40 hour work weeks/laws against child labor/OT rules...

Jesus..

Breath dude.

 

Sorry my friend, I didn't go wrong!
The fact is, government screws up every damn thing it gets it's hands into. Pro government liberals and progressive will always claim government is the next best thing since sliced bread. Hell, free stuff is hard to pass up when ya can't or won't provide for yourself.

 

I completely agree. My post was not an indictment of European nations or they way they do things. It was a criticism of American Liberals' perception of those nations.

 

You equate government with free stuff? Lmfao. There's a tad bit more to the government than free stuff.

Government is a reality, not a choice. The term 'pro-government' is about as meaningful as pro-food.

 

You've been under a rock for years or you're being disingenuous if you don't understand the left and free government stuff, I'll guess the later! The majority of fair minded people understand that pro-government means you are for big government, which by the way is definitely a choice!

With that said, I'd say the term pro-government is about as meaningful as pro-red meat, they're both bad for you but some people choose to indulge!

 

Oh, no. Dumping on America is a pathetic excuse.

And, yes, government is WAY better than the alternative!!

And, NO, I didn't propose that anything was free.

You're bouncing all over the place now, desperate to find an issue where you have a prayer of defending yourself. And, you will not find that.

 

Dude, no one is bouncing all over the place, you just can't keep up and are having a hell of a time justifying your agenda!

 

Bill Maher is a comedian and an entertainer. Anyone who takes his thoughts seriously must be short a few fries in their Happy Meal.

 

If you have something to contribute, give it a try!

 

We would be able to live next door to capitalists during a revolutionary period as long as their ideas remained ideas as well, and they didn't start a counterrevolution. Communism is no more likely to clamp down on capitalists staging a counterrevolution than capitalists are to clamp down on communists staging a revolution.

 

1. Taxes, they got that (*)(*)(*)(*) down.
2. Waste money, they got that (*)(*)(*)(*) down too.
3. Grow for the sake of getting more money to waste. Government is experts in that.
4. Adding more rules(making reasonable sense not needed).
5. Taxes, okay, but government is really awesome at pissing away money, so taxes deserve two spots.

 

My God, I stand corrected!

 

Who would you be starting a counterrevolution against?

 

Who would you (capitalists) be starting one against? A proletarian state, presumably...