Sosialisme

Diskusjon om andre ideologier, slik som sosialdemokrati, sosialisme og konservatisme.

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg Håvard 05 Sep 2009, 16:23

Denne sangen beskriver sosialisme veldig godt.

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
"The oaks are just too greedy,
"We will make them give us light!"
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And The Trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw....


"Live for yourself, there's no one more worth living for"
Håvard
 
Innlegg: 85
Registrert: 28 Jul 2009, 12:13
Bosted: Bergen

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg Bent A. 06 Sep 2009, 03:08

Håvard skrev:Denne sangen beskriver sosialisme veldig godt.

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
"The oaks are just too greedy,
"We will make them give us light!"
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And The Trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw....



Og det kanskje i større grad enn hva som den ikke ikke så skarpsynte oppdager. Stikkordet er by hatchet! Hva ennet enn et symbol på vold er det? Det er Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain eksempel om igjen og det Hayek og Nozick kaller patterned society (les punkt 7) ).

Se også her.
Frihet er det høyeste politiske gode.
Brukerens avatar
Bent A.
 
Innlegg: 486
Registrert: 10 Jan 2004, 08:26

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg hongK 07 Sep 2010, 17:18

Igor Shafarevich, "The Socialist Phenomenon"

http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_194

Her er mye historie, og er en skikkelig høstkrim.

Han sier bl.a:
The death of mankind is not only a conceivable result of the triumph of socialism--it constitutes the goal of socialism.
hongK
 
Innlegg: 4
Registrert: 11 Mai 2009, 13:16

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg Napalm Death 15 Nov 2010, 20:16

Det som plager meg en del i vårt samfunn er den enorme misforståelsen at svært mange tror sosialismen står for et godt menneskesyn. Selv de som sier at den ikke vil fungere i praksis men er grunnleggende god, står for dette utsagnet. Samtidig vil de fleste si at tvang er umoralsk og forkastelig, og at ran/tyveri bør være straffbart. Et rettferdig samfunn i følge sosialistene er et samfunn der de som utmerker seg, er flittige og jobber for egen vinning (selv om den ikke nødvendigvis går negativt utover andre, snarere positivt) bør straffes for dette indirekte og direkte. At dette er det som faktisk skjer i en sosialistisk stat virker det som om mange ikke klarer å fatte.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. – Barry Goldwater
Napalm Death
 
Innlegg: 16
Registrert: 08 Mar 2010, 20:45

What's a Socialist to Do?

Innlegg Panther 09 Des 2010, 22:39

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6176-what-s-a-socialist-to-do.html

8 December 2010 Michael Hurd

Obama, and people like him, can’t stand capitalism. Yet none of us can live without it.

I keep hearing people who oppose "tax cuts for the rich" complaining that we're "giving" money to these rich people. This is a dishonest distortion of epic proportions. It's the distortion that makes our whole wretched welfare-regulatory state possible. The person who makes such a claim is actually implying that just because somebody makes over a certain amount of money, the money does not belong to him or her. Wealth, by implication, is the property of the government, the instant you earn it.

If the government considers you poor, they'll leave you alone. That's why they want to lower -- if not eliminate altogether -- taxes for the middle class. It really is about wealth redistribution. But in order to redistribute wealth, you must first have a moral claim on it. If I break into your house, or your bank account, and attempt to steal some of your money, it won't matter if I say it's for a person who needs it. It won't matter if I can even prove it. I'd be treated as a criminal, both by you and by the government. The premise of treating me as a criminal would be that it's YOUR money and it's YOURS to decide how to spend it, whether to give it to anybody at all and, if so, to whom to give it to. I have no moral claim on your money or property; but you do.


The simplest way I know to put it is: You can’t take the capital out of capitalism, and still expect the benefits of capitalism. Yes, the socialists are still in charge in Washington D.C. But they’re being expected to deliver the benefits of a system they don’t understand, don’t like one bit, and would frankly like to eliminate. They want to spread wealth around, and hold a moral claim on everyone’s money, without being bothered to create all that money.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Liberals Don't Hate Money, They Hate Walmart (Capitalism)

Innlegg Panther 23 Jan 2011, 17:38

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/markets/6244-liberals-don-t-hate-money-they-hate-walmart-capitalism.html

23 January 2011 Michael Hurd

The hypocrisy, inconsistency and general idiocy of our age -- a "liberal" age -- knows no limits.


Walmart, liberals argue, is greedy and exploits its workers by not paying them what they consider enough. How much is enough? This is never specified. However, the definition is clear: "Enough" consists of more than workers are currently making at any given time. It will never be enough.

The issue is profit. Liberals hate profit and success, especially when it occurs in the free market. What does the "free market" actually mean?

It means that everyone involved is doing what he or she is doing voluntarily. Workers at Walmart are working there by choice. They're free to work elsewhere, or even to not work at all and instead draw unemployment or Social Security disability (something liberals would frankly prefer). Liberals and socialists cannot stand the idea of anyone doing anything voluntarily, because (1) this means government is not involved, and (2) this means they (liberals) are not needed.

When hapless conservatives argue that Walmart is "giving tons of food to the poor" it has no impact at all on liberal rage against capitalism.

This is interesting, because liberals and socialists claim to care about the poor, most of all. Yet when Walmart gives to the poor, liberals are not even a little bit happier. This is because they're not in favor of the poor so much as against Walmart. Translation: They're not concerned with reducing poverty so much as eradicating capitalism and self-interest, for the poor as well as the rich.

In some contexts, liberals don't mind profit at all. In fact, they champion it. Consider insane lawsuits. The latest is the case of the woman who's suing a shopping mall because she tripped and fell while texting. She and her lawyers will argue that the mall is responsible for her fall because they didn't post a sign telling her that texting could be hazardous to her health. They'll also hold the mall liable for shame and embarrassment due to millions seeing the whole thing posted on you tube. After all, if the mall had never been built, there would be no physical danger or emotional shame. It's all the mall's fault.


For some liberals, the power is personal. Liberal socialists such as Nancy Pelosi surely crave and want their power. It's personal and pathological, as well as ideological. For others, it's more abstract and intellectual. They might not want power personally, but they want mankind to be ruled. The ones they want to be ruled the most of all are the successful and the competent. They like the idea of great and successful individuals -- people who would have done well no matter what -- having to kowtow to the whims and powers of government authorities.

They love to see the best and the brightest of mankind humbled, because it satisfies some sick and dark feeling within them.

This is why America has become, I’m sad to say, a sick country. I don’t want to think that most Americans are as sick as these liberals. But these liberals and socialists -- these excellence-hating miscreants -- are the ones who run essentially all of our government and academic institutions. Even some self-made successes in business have become sick, going against all the values and strengths which made their initial success possible.

If America is to be well again, it has to become a place where people who hold these beliefs, attitudes and contradictions are exposed for the idiotic and life-hating forces that they are.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Sosialisme og fagforeninger

Innlegg Panther 22 Feb 2011, 19:20

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6278-%EF%BB%BFpriorities-d.c.-style.html

Priorities -- D.C. Style
22 February 2011 Michael Hurd

"What kind of priorities do Republicans have -- using a weed whacker to the education budget, while allowing well-off people to still have tax deductions on their second homes?"


The question is intended to answer itself, and also to instill guilt in Republicans or any other fiscal hawks listening. It will probably work; it certainly always has, in the past.

Here are my questions in reply to this question:

Who says that the federal government actually educates children? Test scores show that parents -- most of them educational amateurs who simply love their children -- are doing a far better job educating their kids in home schooling than billions upon billions spent on a federal education bureaucracy ever will. If you love education so much, then why don't you get the federal government out of education altogether? Education need not be expensive. It just takes dedication, persistence and focus. Government bureaucracies and government-supported labor unions are the LEAST able to provide this.

Whose priorities count here -- everyone's or just those of certain people? People who home school or send their children to private schools don't need public schools; why should they be paying more in taxes for the schooling of other kids? And what about people who don't have children? And what about people whose children are already grown? Why do these parents have to give up buying products or services they otherwise would have bought in order to pay higher property taxes (or whatever the specific penalty) to finance other people's education?

What about the businesses from whom these people would have bought goods/services? What profits will they not make, what employees will they not hire, so that Joe (who has no kids) may pay for the public schooling of Jack's or Mary's kids?

And even if some people pay little or no taxes, what about the corporations and businesses that pay millions in taxes? These costs are passed on to consumers. In the bigger scheme of things, it might not matter so much to a big corporation if it pays 2-4 percent more in taxes per year to contribute to public education; but what about the increased costs of gas, groceries, medical care or other products these corporations sell, prices increased by those ever-increasing taxes? Yes, "the rich" do pay most of society's taxes; but they pass the cost of these taxes on to the middle class and the poor. Why doesn't Obama ever mention this fact in all his soak-the-rich schemes?

You mention "priorities." What about the priorities of everyone involved here -- not just the priorities of liberal socialists and their powerful special interest groups? Isn't it a priority for every individual to be left free, and doesn't that trump the needs or wants of one group as opposed to another?
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Sosialisme og Helsevesenet

Innlegg Panther 22 Feb 2011, 19:26

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/healthcare/6280-%EF%BB%BFlaissez-faire-socialism.html

Laissez-faire Socialism
22 February 2011 Michael Hurd

Originally, Obama and Pelosi's Congress wanted to simply pass single-payer, outright socialized medicine. They called this the public "option." When that became politically impossible, they decided to keep the hampered "market" in place and -- regulate it to death. ObamaCare is socialized medicine by the back door.

A study by Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor, found that replacing the individual mandate in ObamaCare, as suggested by many opponents of the law, would significantly erode the coverage gains from the law and raise premiums for health care consumers. Representatives of the health insurance industry separately backed up Gruber’s conclusions, stating that alternatives proposed in Congress will be expensive and unsustainable.


Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, a strong proponent of ObamaCare and all things socialist, explained why the $750 fine contained in the health-care law for people failing to carry a government-approved health insurance policy is not in fact a penalty: “I would make the argument, one, that instead it is an incentive to do right — that it is not penalizing because penalty is punishment,” Jackson-Lee told the House Judiciary Committee. “You’re not punished if you have health insurance, in fact.

And so you are, in fact, incentivized to have health insurance, rather than take the negative which is to suggest that because we have a penalty you are being punished,” Rep. Jackson-Lee said.

An incentive -- at gunpoint? I don't think so. An incentive is a motivation offered to do something you're not otherwise required to do.

"I'd love it if you'd cut my lawn. Can I tempt you with $50? Or a dinner at Ruth's Chris?" These are incentives. "Cut my lawn or I'll put you in jail" is not an incentive. Nor is "pay the fine or go to jail." These people may be idiots, but they're not stupid. They know what they're saying and they know what they're doing. They simply don't care.

Don't be lulled into security by a well-meaning but probably ineffective Republican House of Representatives. The redistributive welfare state in America is out of control. It's so out of control that socialists are reduced to arguing, in effect, "Private sector and private capitalism:

Get out of our way." They want laissez-faire socialism.

If you ask me, the private sector -- who pays for every single penny of government -- should do just that. Get out of the socialists' way. Leave them alone, set them free -- and cut them off for good.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Pass a Law! Liberalism to Its Ultimate Conclusion

Innlegg Panther 22 Feb 2011, 19:30

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/welfare/6281-pass-a-law!-%EF%BB%BFliberalism-to-its-ultimate-conclusion.html

22 February 2011 Michael Hurd

What kind of society makes its citizens -- especially its most needy ones -- pay for things? There ought to be a law outlawing costs, prices or anything not given away for free.

The welfare state is cracking apart. It has run out of money.

Most people want the supposed benefits of a welfare state; nearly everybody welcomes something for nothing. But increasingly, it's apparent to all involved that you can't get something for nothing. And when you force others to give you something of theirs for nothing, you end up with unintended consequences -- such as less of everything, for everyone! Case in point: Western Europe, especially Great Britain, where the welfare state is collapsing within itself. Case in point: California. And New Jersey. And now Wisconsin.

In the spirit of the times, I propose the following to address the growing crisis. Liberal Democrats and socialists everywhere, I trust, will have no problem supporting these proposals: Pass a law eliminating cost. Why do we need to pay for things, anyway?


Incentives? Forget it. That American way has not worked. Let’s cut right to the chase. Who could be against such a law? Who doesn't want a society filled with caring people? Let's call it ... The Oprah Law. She is the face of caring, if ever there was one.

Yes, if we could just get rid of money, cost and "the economy" as we know it, then all of our other problems would go away. Poor Barack. He means well, and those supporting these laws totally support what he's trying to do. But it won't work. He's working too much within the system of money, exchange, rationality and commerce. Those things all must go.

They are harsh, mean and judgmental. Barack the Great and our beloved Queen Michelle are no such thing. They are superior and should be kept in office for good (forget elections, forget term limits.) We hardly deserve to live under their rule. But their rule can be much more efficient, magnificent and lasting -- if only these laws could be passed.

So what do you think? Have I left anything out?
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Social Security Cannot -- And Should Not -- Be Saved

Innlegg Panther 23 Feb 2011, 20:08

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/social-security/6282-%EF%BB%BFsocial-security-cannot-and-should-not-be-saved.html

23 February 2011 Michael Hurd

Most people assume that government takes your money from you when you're younger only to give it back to you, with interest, when you're older. Now why would government go to all this trouble? You can do this yourself. And if the motive were merely paternalistic, government would simply pass a law requiring you to save for your old age.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: "Here's the truth that nobody's talking about. You're gonna have to raise the retirement age for Social Security. Whoa, I just said it, and I'm still standing here. I did not vaporize."

Actually, the problems with Social Security are greater than raising the retirement age will solve. The program is, by its very nature, unsustainable -- because it's unjust. It's unjust because it forces people to pay into a government fund what they're entitled to spend or keep as they see fit. The real reason for Social Security is, and always was, to transfer wealth from those who have it to those whom government deems more politically fit to have it.


That's not what Social Security is about; it's about wealth distribution on a massive scale. In order to convince Americans, especially back in the 1930s (before the Entitlement Era had fully taken hold in the United States) to agree to such a transfer of wealth, government had to rationalize, "It's for your future savings -- that's all." Americans at that time were either too stupid or too weak to question this, or fight back. Americans today are not merely stupid or weak against their government. They're righteous and angry, demanding that they get what's coming to them. Hence the current budget crisis in Washington D.C., where government spends trillions of dollars more than Americans collectively make -- or will even make generations from now, at the rate the national debt is going.


By the time socialists totally run out of other people's money, it will likely be too late for the private economy and the American style-of-life as we've known it. The only way to reverse this disaster, assuming there still is time, is to begin privatization now. It's not likely, because even misguided voices such as Chris Christie are voices in the wilderness. Those refusing to listen now are the ones who deserve what happens. Like it or not Social Security is going to die someday, and privatization is nothing more than acceptance of this fact.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Civil Discourse For Some

Innlegg Panther 27 Feb 2011, 18:23

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6311-%EF%BB%BFcivil-discourse-for-some.html

24 February 2011 Michael Hurd

Liberalism and socialism do not, and by their nature cannot, speak the language of reason, logic, and factual discourse because by definition this ideology is committed to the use of force -- not persuasion.

From an A.P. report: "Two former presidents -- one Republican, the other a Democrat -- will chair a new national institute to promote civility in political discourse in the city where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded in a shooting rampage that left six dead, officials said. The National Institute for Civil Discourse will be run by the University of Arizona. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton will serve as its honorary co-chairmen. ‘Our country needs a setting for political debate that is both frank and civil, and the National Institute for Civil Discourse can make a significant contribution toward reaching this goal,’ Mr. Bush said in a prepared statement. Mr. Clinton said the institute ‘can elevate the tone of dialogue in our country, and in so doing, help us to keep moving toward 'a more perfect union.' "

Organizations like this do not aide freedom, individual rights or anything close to civil discourse. What they aide is the liberal/socialist cause. They do so by implying that acts of political violence are perpetrated by people who don’t agree with liberals. It’s appropriate that George Bush I and Bill Clinton team up for this effort, because Bush I represents the conventional Republican thinking that if conservatives were simply “kinder and gentler” -- that is to say, more liberal -- all would be well. This is far too one-sided to constitute "discourse."

Any lack of civil discourse does not arise from a lack of commitment to the policies of Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. It does not stem from a failure of society to actualize the ambitions and goals of people like Karl Marx and contemporary versions of Marxism to be found throughout our media, academic and political culture.


When liberals form organizations with names like “The National Institute for Civil Discourse” it reminds me of the family abuser who says, “We’re all reasonable people here. What’s the problem?” And then, an hour or a day or a week later, the abuser proceeds to throttle you. Rest assured that the liberals who fund and promote these pretentious parodies, seeming so decent and calm in one context, are more than ready to expropriate your wealth (if you have any), determine your medical treatment, authorize what kind of cars you’re to buy and how much fuel you’re allowed to have to put into them. They attack the private sector with taxes, rules and contradictory regulations and then scream it's the private sector's fault when unemployment rises.

Advocates of liberalism are control freaks, and it’s control over every aspect of your life that they seek. There’s no “discourse” to be had about that!
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Fantasy Interview with Hollywood Liberal Socialist Matt Damo

Innlegg Panther 05 Aug 2011, 08:25

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/hollywood/6522-fantasy-interview-with-hollywood-liberal-socialist-matt-damon.html

4 August 2011 Michael Hurd

"Matt, you've said that it's outrageous that people who make a lot of money aren't paying more in taxes -- at least 50 percent in taxes. Why don't you voluntarily give that amount to the government? To set an example?"
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg superted 21 Sep 2011, 10:53

Jeg må gjengi en glimrende kommentar til en artikkel på Capitalism Magazine:
Swede_P skrev:You will notice that socialism is always judged by its purported intentions, never its results or implications in practice. Capitalism is condemned, not usually for its results, but for being cold and heartless - never mind that people survive and thrive under it.

Milton Friedman har påpekt noe lignende i et intervju:
Milton Friedman skrev:One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

Jeg må oppgitt konstatere at denne feilen er regelen heller enn unntaket i norsk politikk.
superted
 
Innlegg: 56
Registrert: 06 Apr 2011, 20:01

Re: Sosialisme

Innlegg RTE 21 Sep 2011, 16:02

superted skrev:Jeg må gjengi en glimrende kommentar til en artikkel på Capitalism Magazine:
Swede_P skrev:You will notice that socialism is always judged by its purported intentions, never its results or implications in practice. Capitalism is condemned, not usually for its results, but for being cold and heartless - never mind that people survive and thrive under it.

Milton Friedman har påpekt noe lignende i et intervju:
Milton Friedman skrev:One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

Jeg må oppgitt konstatere at denne feilen er regelen heller enn unntaket i norsk politikk.


Problemet er ikke at vi kun fokuserer på intensjonen bak et bestemt politisk syn i stedet for å se på resultatet, problemet er at vi ikke ser godt nok etter på hva som virkelig er intensjonen bak. Er det virkelig slik at gode intensjoner så ofte fører til onde ting i praksis? Har sosialister virkelig gode intensjoner og bare ønsker alt godt for alle?.. Problemet med høyresiden er at de altid har vert opptatt av det praktiske og ikke brydd seg nok om ideene. Filosofi er mye viktigere en økonomi og historie. Du kan komme med så mangen økonomiske og historiske forklaringer du bare orker om hvorfor kapitalismen fungerer men så lenge altruismen er moralen i samfunnet så vil vi aldri nå målet om 100% frihet. Vi må vise at altruismen er ond tvers igjennom for å beseire sosialismen. Gode intensjoner fører i de aller fleste tilfeller også til gode ting i praksis. Altruismen er dødens moral og sosialisme er et resultat av dette moralsynet i praksis. Altruismen (selvoppofrelse) er ondt og resultatet (sosialisme, kommunisme, nazisme, religiøse diktaturer, monarkier) er ondt. Det er ingen godhet i å fornekte virkeligheten og tvinge sitt livssyn på andre uten å i det hele tatt gjøre en rasjonell vurdering og finne ut om det livssynet faktisk er riktig. Altruismen er som sagt dødens moral og død er det eneste resultatet altruistene noen gang vil klare å oppnå i virkeligheten. Å strebe mot noe som ikke eksisterer i virkeligheten slik som "himmelriket" og "det kommunistiske samfunn" er det samme som å strebe mot døden og alle som synest at det er moralsk å leve et så godt liv som mulig vil aldri noen gang strebe mot slike utopier.
RTE
 
Innlegg: 99
Registrert: 14 Mar 2011, 19:15
Bosted: Bergen

The Black Hole of Government Waste and Corruption

Innlegg Panther 30 Sep 2011, 15:36

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/6597-the-black-hole-of-government-waste-and-corruption.html

29 September 2011 Sylvia Bokor

Taxes and regulations ravage the nation's savings, suffocate ambition, undermine business operations, erase certainty and penalize the successful while rewarding the indigent.

"Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job." So stated an October 2009 report written by Brian M. Riedl, a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Businesses are forced to provide that money. But Obama refuses to cut such spending. He demands more revenue.

Tea Party Republicans argue against raising taxes and for spending cuts. But Warren Buffett wrote that the very rich should be taxed more.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

ForrigeNeste

Gå til Andre ideologier

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 0 gjester

cron