Logic Alone is Not Enough. Not Nearly Enough.

[ChristineM]

Are you advocating the kind of socialism
which has capitalism & a market economy?

i am not advocating anything here, i am stating that many countries governments utilise a socialist model for some of their services

 

[Revoltingest]

i am not advocating anything here, i am stating that many countries governments utilise a socialist model for some of their services

OK.
It's just really odd that so many are calling capitalist countries "socialist" instead of "capitalist".

 

[ChristineM]

OK.
It's just really odd that so many are calling capitalist countries "socialist" instead of "capitalist".

And quite a few of those capitalist countries would be in more of a mess without socialist ideas

 

[dianaiad]

Jeez, how many times must i repeat "variations of socialist models" we have had along discussion on the NHS. That is based on a socialist model. It is cloned in several countries, all based on socialist models.

Christine.

One cannot base something on a 'model' that doesn't exist. If the government doesn't own the 'means of production,' that is, if the government does not own profit producing industries, then it's not socialist. Period.

There is a rather firm line there; in order to be socialist, the government MUST own and operate the manufacturers, etc., if it doesn't, it's something else.

I rather like the term 'social capitalism' that revoltingest advocates.

I'm quite certain that you wouldn't like it if I insisted that all those nations are REALLY 'based on capitalist models,' now, would you? The fact is, they are capitalist.

...and the more capitalist the nation is, the more successful it is. China has discovered that one.

The problem with socialism and communism is that, as lovely as the idea behind either one is, it REQUIRES people to be individually committed to it, and for them to choose to sacrifice their ambitions to it. Their choice. Neither communism nor socialism can successfully be legislated. Shoot, if anybody knows THAT, it's a Latter-day saint (Mormon.) We had something called "the United Order," which was about as pure communism as one could get. Worked, too....we had one community that lasted something like 97 years, until the Feds decided to enact the personal income tax. Turns out that one can't have income taxes and socialism/communism. Doesn't work at all.

The thing is, it worked for us BECAUSE it was an individual choice; those who wanted to live it, and who could commit to it, were able to join and live it. Those who didn't want to had an alternative...a larger community of decidedly capitalistic people, who were, oddly enough, just as determined to support their communistic sub-culture as they were to their own individual capitalism.

So don't get me wrong here. Communism and socialism are all well and good; wonderful ideals...but not possible because people just are not, in general, able to live up to those ideals...and you just can't force it on people.

Which means that as a government, it's not a good option. Really. It's not. Smaller, individual groups? Absolutely...but only within a larger, alternative culture to which those who can't deal with the communist ideal can retreat.

Oddly enough, the USA does have one or two very socialist type corporations...those which are owned entirely by the people who work in it. I can't remember the name of one of them off hand, but I'm sure someone else will think of one. It is an example of what I'm talking about here; socialism working in small groups freely choosing to do so, within a larger, capitalist culture.

But you go ahead: show me one nation that works on socialist principles...that is, where the government owns and controls the means of production, of goods and services, that actually works; that has a really good economy, that serves its people to the level that any capitalist nation does.

NOT a government which has really high taxes on privately owned industries so that it can fund services, one that is actually socialist: owning and controlling profit making industries, corporations, etc.

I'll help: there aren't any. None. And if you look at a nation which seems to be coming out of its economic doldrums (like China, for instance) you will see that it is mostly because it is turning AWAY from socialism and towards capitalism...private ownership of industries.

Capitalism is not a dirty word, Christine. Really. It's not.

 

[Revoltingest]

And quite a few of those capitalist countries would be in more of a mess without socialist ideas

Per the dictionary, the social safety net isn't socialist,
given that it's not the means of production.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine.

One cannot base something on a 'model' that doesn't exist. If the government doesn't own the 'means of production,' that is, if the government does not own profit producing industries, then it's not socialist. Period.

There is a rather firm line there; in order to be socialist, the government MUST own and operate the manufacturers, etc., if it doesn't, it's something else.

I rather like the term 'social capitalism' that revoltingest advocates.

I'm quite certain that you wouldn't like it if I insisted that all those nations are REALLY 'based on capitalist models,' now, would you? The fact is, they are capitalist.

...and the more capitalist the nation is, the more successful it is. China has discovered that one.

The problem with socialism and communism is that, as lovely as the idea behind either one is, it REQUIRES people to be individually committed to it, and for them to choose to sacrifice their ambitions to it. Their choice. Neither communism nor socialism can successfully be legislated. Shoot, if anybody knows THAT, it's a Latter-day saint (Mormon.) We had something called "the United Order," which was about as pure communism as one could get. Worked, too....we had one community that lasted something like 97 years, until the Feds decided to enact the personal income tax. Turns out that one can't have income taxes and socialism/communism. Doesn't work at all.

The thing is, it worked for us BECAUSE it was an individual choice; those who wanted to live it, and who could commit to it, were able to join and live it. Those who didn't want to had an alternative...a larger community of decidedly capitalistic people, who were, oddly enough, just as determined to support their communistic sub-culture as they were to their own individual capitalism.

So don't get me wrong here. Communism and socialism are all well and good; wonderful ideals...but not possible because people just are not, in general, able to live up to those ideals...and you just can't force it on people.

Which means that as a government, it's not a good option. Really. It's not. Smaller, individual groups? Absolutely...but only within a larger, alternative culture to which those who can't deal with the communist ideal can retreat.

Oddly enough, the USA does have one or two very socialist type corporations...those which are owned entirely by the people who work in it. I can't remember the name of one of them off hand, but I'm sure someone else will think of one. It is an example of what I'm talking about here; socialism working in small groups freely choosing to do so, within a larger, capitalist culture.

But you go ahead: show me one nation that works on socialist principles...that is, where the government owns and controls the means of production, of goods and services, that actually works; that has a really good economy, that serves its people to the level that any capitalist nation does.

NOT a government which has really high taxes on privately owned industries so that it can fund services, one that is actually socialist: owning and controlling profit making industries, corporations, etc.

I'll help: there aren't any. None. And if you look at a nation which seems to be coming out of its economic doldrums (like China, for instance) you will see that it is mostly because it is turning AWAY from socialism and towards capitalism...private ownership of industries.

Capitalism is not a dirty word, Christine. Really. It's not.

Your opinion is noted and ignored because facts show otherwise and i i done with this nonsense of denying facts just because they upset your sensibilities.

Nor are socialist policies, no matter how you ignore the facts

 

[ChristineM]

Per the dictionary, the social safety net isn't socialist,
given that it's not the means of production.

The NHS produces services to aid health
British Rail (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced transport
British telecom (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced telephone system
British gas (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced first coal gas then natural gas and supplied both domestic and industrial customers who in turn produced goods to help the UK function.

 

[dianaiad]

The NHS produces services to aid health
British Rail (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced transport
British telecom (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced telephone system
British gas (now defunct, sold off to capitalism) produced first coal gas then natural gas and supplied both domestic and industrial customers who in turn produced goods to help the UK function.

This should tell you something, Christine. When the government runs something, that something generally fails. When it is 'turned over..sold off' to capitalist private owners, THEN they work. Mostly.

Socialist governments don't work. Never have.

 

[ChristineM]

This should tell you something, Christine. When the government runs something, that something generally fails. When it is 'turned over..sold off' to capitalist private owners, THEN they work. Mostly.

Socialist governments don't work. Never have.

The only one the is failing is the NHS, it is failing through.lack of finding?

The others were broken up and sold off as going concerns. Being a shareholder in 2 of them should tell you something of their profitability at the time of the sales.

Your rhetoric does not agree with reality.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Or...socialism. It has NEVER worked...but people keep advocating for it.

Democratic Socialism is fine for me

 

[dianaiad]

Democratic Socialism is fine for me

Define that?

 

[gnomon]

After reading the responses, and thinking about most of them, I only have one question: Why do I even bother?

They let me back so why do you bother?

Dear god...........why?

Maybe I should read your OP.

Even the strictest, most correct logical reasoning can go wrong without its being tested against empirical evidence. The reason the sciences have been so successful is because they combine logical reasoning with empirical confirmation. This was not done systematically before Galileo's time, 500 years ago.

Let's be honest. If all you have going for your views are logical arguments, you have jack****. Jack****. You have nothing more worthwhile than all those strictly valid logical arguments during the Middle Ages that rigorously proved this or that number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's all you have. 360 angels. Or 144,000 angels. Or an infinite number of angels. That is, all you have is Jack****.

Case in point. Libertarianism. Great theory. Very logical. But what does the empirical evidence say? Well, when the libertarian economic and political principles of the Nobel winning libertarian economist James McGill Buchanan* were applied to the Chilean economy, the result was horrific levels of suffering for the Chilean middle class and poor. Horrific levels! So bad Buchanan himself refused to talk about the experiment with anyone for the rest of his life. Simply would not speak about it.

Logic without empirical validation is jack****. You see someone "prove" something to you about this world using logic alone, call them on it. Don't be duped by them, call them on it! Don't be fooled, call them on it!

Do Not Let the BSers BS You! Logic Alone is Not Enough! Call Them On It!





*I am picking on Buchanan here because the man was famous for refusing to test his theories against empirical reality. Even the theory that got him the Nobel was not tested -- and has never been tested -- against empirical reality. The Nobel Committee awarded the prize without the man's theory having ever been tested! Jeebers! Are there ANY responsible adults in the room these days?

Actually scientific validation was before Galileo. Sorry. Who hear actually heard of James McGill Buchanan? So thus far there is a generalized argument based upon your own intuition devoid of any actual logical discourse.

Angels on the head of a pin? Then a devolution into liberartian philosophy with no logical argument other than an aside to the Chilean economy.........Hey Bob! Yeah? What's up with 20th century Chilean economics in accordance with modern US libertarian philosophy? Ask Taylor Swift for all I know. Hey thanks for that........I should know everything by now.

Seriously.

You wonder why you bother after this mess?

An argument devoid of content and lacking ....... why should anyone bother.

edit: poke poke poke.....I just want to annoy someone.

 

[j1i]

Even the strictest, most correct logical reasoning can go wrong without its being tested against empirical evidence. The reason the sciences have been so successful is because they combine logical reasoning with empirical confirmation. This was not done systematically before Galileo's time, 500 years ago.

Let's be honest. If all you have going for your views are logical arguments, you have jack****. Jack****. You have nothing more worthwhile than all those strictly valid logical arguments during the Middle Ages that rigorously proved this or that number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's all you have. 360 angels. Or 144,000 angels. Or an infinite number of angels. That is, all you have is Jack****.

Case in point. Libertarianism. Great theory. Very logical. But what does the empirical evidence say? Well, when the libertarian economic and political principles of the Nobel winning libertarian economist James McGill Buchanan* were applied to the Chilean economy, the result was horrific levels of suffering for the Chilean middle class and poor. Horrific levels! So bad Buchanan himself refused to talk about the experiment with anyone for the rest of his life. Simply would not speak about it.

Logic without empirical validation is jack****. You see someone "prove" something to you about this world using logic alone, call them on it. Don't be duped by them, call them on it! Don't be fooled, call them on it!

Do Not Let the BSers BS You! Logic Alone is Not Enough! Call Them On It!





*I am picking on Buchanan here because the man was famous for refusing to test his theories against empirical reality. Even the theory that got him the Nobel was not tested -- and has never been tested -- against empirical reality. The Nobel Committee awarded the prize without the man's theory having ever been tested! Jeebers! Are there ANY responsible adults in the room these days?

if we see past, Politics between countries were intertwined with the media and enthusiastic articles for leaders
They say that they are strong and capable of victory
By experience everyone lost, with military propaganda that was adorned the newspapers
Doing a empirical evidence in all things may be bad

But it remains your right

 

[Milton Platt]

Even the strictest, most correct logical reasoning can go wrong without its being tested against empirical evidence. The reason the sciences have been so successful is because they combine logical reasoning with empirical confirmation. This was not done systematically before Galileo's time, 500 years ago.

Let's be honest. If all you have going for your views are logical arguments, you have jack****. Jack****. You have nothing more worthwhile than all those strictly valid logical arguments during the Middle Ages that rigorously proved this or that number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's all you have. 360 angels. Or 144,000 angels. Or an infinite number of angels. That is, all you have is Jack****.

Case in point. Libertarianism. Great theory. Very logical. But what does the empirical evidence say? Well, when the libertarian economic and political principles of the Nobel winning libertarian economist James McGill Buchanan* were applied to the Chilean economy, the result was horrific levels of suffering for the Chilean middle class and poor. Horrific levels! So bad Buchanan himself refused to talk about the experiment with anyone for the rest of his life. Simply would not speak about it.

Logic without empirical validation is jack****. You see someone "prove" something to you about this world using logic alone, call them on it. Don't be duped by them, call them on it! Don't be fooled, call them on it!

Do Not Let the BSers BS You! Logic Alone is Not Enough! Call Them On It!





*I am picking on Buchanan here because the man was famous for refusing to test his theories against empirical reality. Even the theory that got him the Nobel was not tested -- and has never been tested -- against empirical reality. The Nobel Committee awarded the prize without the man's theory having ever been tested! Jeebers! Are there ANY responsible adults in the room these days?

I was informed that Libertariansim is not monolithic, and that there are several versions. Haven't delved into it to know, however.

If you will indulge my laziness, do you have any links at hand about libertarianism in Chile? or suggested reading? thanks.

 

[Shakazuluuuuu]

Even the strictest, most correct logical reasoning can go wrong without its being tested against empirical evidence. The reason the sciences have been so successful is because they combine logical reasoning with empirical confirmation. This was not done systematically before Galileo's time, 500 years ago.

Let's be honest. If all you have going for your views are logical arguments, you have jack****. Jack****. You have nothing more worthwhile than all those strictly valid logical arguments during the Middle Ages that rigorously proved this or that number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's all you have. 360 angels. Or 144,000 angels. Or an infinite number of angels. That is, all you have is Jack****.

Case in point. Libertarianism. Great theory. Very logical. But what does the empirical evidence say? Well, when the libertarian economic and political principles of the Nobel winning libertarian economist James McGill Buchanan* were applied to the Chilean economy, the result was horrific levels of suffering for the Chilean middle class and poor. Horrific levels! So bad Buchanan himself refused to talk about the experiment with anyone for the rest of his life. Simply would not speak about it.

Logic without empirical validation is jack****. You see someone "prove" something to you about this world using logic alone, call them on it. Don't be duped by them, call them on it! Don't be fooled, call them on it!

Do Not Let the BSers BS You! Logic Alone is Not Enough! Call Them On It!





*I am picking on Buchanan here because the man was famous for refusing to test his theories against empirical reality. Even the theory that got him the Nobel was not tested -- and has never been tested -- against empirical reality. The Nobel Committee awarded the prize without the man's theory having ever been tested! Jeebers! Are there ANY responsible adults in the room these days?

Seems like it all comes back to sloth. Embracing lazy is the one that lost to the early bird.

Logic. Simple subroutines. Some that allow life in and those that just die off. Maybe