MOD EDIT - Rule 3 Republicans claim that their problem with "socialism" is that it requires "big government." Right? And republicans also insist that the foundation of "capitalism" is "voluntary exchange of goods and services." Still with me? So, just hypothetically here, if people were to voluntarily form associations that were not based in the government ... like, say, a church, but not necessarily a church ... but which carried out programs that you would describe as "socialist," you would have no problem with that at all. If a bunch of people want to get together of their own free will and make sure they all have health care, that doesn't offend you. You're not against people having health care, you're just against the government making everybody have health care. Just to use health care as one "socialist" example. Right?
Yes thats right, no problem with that what so ever, its the way it should be. But the socialist church is like Islam only its not convert or die its give us your money (which is an exchange for your labor) or lose your freedom. They could do voluntary socialism right now, they could open communist burgers and pay burger flippers the same as the CEO......why dont they?
They have informed me, at the Socialist HQ command center (must remain secret for the time being), that yes, voluntary compliance is much prefered to total assimilation, but than in the end, resistance is futile, unless there is one among the humans, who can be sent to periodically adjust programs within the Matrix, so that the Agent Smith Police State program does not destroy everything.
i have absolutely no problem if Socialism is completely voluntary, with real checks and balances against abusive government. The problem is many socialists want to impose their socialism on to people who don't want it. THAT'S what I oppose.
Wow daybreaker, that's quite an improvement there! Maybe you'll actually get somewhere. You've at last realised that conservatives don't want to murder cute bunnies and baby seals because they're evil, and that they actually want to help people just like anyone else, but don't like coercion? Please, please, tell that to all the other lefties.
But let's say 10000 people somehow got together without any connection, like working for a company, and said "we are willing to pool our resources to buy health insurance" would insurance companies treat them as a group and give them a way cheaper rate?
The problem we have with socialism is wealth redistribution, not big government. The OP's theory is flawed from the start. He is assuming the wrong foundation for his question.
First of all, never make the mistake of confusing socialism with altruism. The former is coercive, the latter is voluntary. And yes, this RWer is opposed to the state forcing people to purchase health insurance that they don't need and want against their will. That coercion is typical of the dictatorial impulses of socialism. Socialism and individual freedom are mutually exclusive of one another - the more you have of the former, the less you have of the latter. That being said, I have no problem with people forming their own voluntary socialist communes. I have one of my own - it's called my family.
Voluntary socialism cant work in a Capitalist society for the same reason Non-violence cant work in a Muslim Theocracy. Sure being non-violent is all well and good, but if you are in the middle of Iraq not so much. Voluntary Socialism is fine and dandy, but not with a Capitalist government. I will explain, As we know Capitalism is about competition, you cannot possibly compete against a corporation who has such cheap labor that their prices will always be lower than yours because you pay your workers a decent wage. Your prices will be more expensive, and most people work for Capitalist businesses, not Socialist ones, meaning they have very low wages, so low they cannot afford the prices of goods at Socialist companies, only Socialist workers can afford those prices but you cant run a business on just what your workers are going to buy from you lol. In short, its impossible to compete against near-slave labor especially when outsourced. Corporations will give the job to whoever is willing to work for the least amount of money, and the most poor desperate people will be the first in line. If there are no poor and desperate people than people will demand a higher wage, but if there are a ton of poor desperate people than its very hard for the middle class to get jobs at a decent wage, you know how conservatives get super mad when Mexicans take their jobs? Well the only reason that happens is because Mexicans are willing to work for less than white people, why is that? Because the Mexicans who take those jobs come from deep poverty, the white people who dont take those jobs are usually somewhere in the middle class. So as long as there are poor people who will take any job they can get, there will be no way to compete against them. Imagine it like this, if one company has a robot army working for them, how would you compete? You cant, and no offense to poor people, but when they get so desperate they basically turn into robots and will do anything for money.
Totally voluntarily, I think communism is probably the best possible way to live, if you're in a small community where everybody knows (and is held accountable) by anyone else. It falls apart once you get to the size where you don't know everybody else. There are some "socialist' things that are necessary. There are almost none of them that should be run by the federal government. The local government should be doing most of the actual governmental actions. State/feds should be doing little.
Oh, you mean the free market system? The one where private enterprise provides goods and services? Obama doesn't like that 'system'. Oh wait, I think you mean 'free', right? Healthcare, food, transportation, housing, etc. all for free..That's that Utopia you guys keep talking about, huh? Well, we better consider keeping the rich, rich. Because that Utopia will have to send a bill to someone...eventually.
If a group of people fear competition due to not being good at anything and wish to voluntarily share in each other's mediocrity by supporting socialism, I don't see a huge problem with that. What you're describing is actually pure communism, not socialism. Marx wrote of socialism as a state controlled system that will hopefully and eventually transform into a system where Government is not required to enforce redistribution. Since this voluntarily sharing scheme ultimately runs against human nature (self-interest), it might work temporarily in a small-scale setting, but it would likely never work at a national, or even regional level. While group A is busy sharing with each other, group B is competing, leading to better innovation, increased efficiency, and more productivity. This will eventually back group A into a corner until they have no choice but to resort to violence and oppression to fight back. It's happened before.
