Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

No, it's true.

Maybe this will help since your having a hard time accepting this truth.

http://www.batr.org/totalitariancollectivism/

 

This is another piece of evidence of Totalitarianism being Collectivist. It's totally true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Enjoy.


You've not provided any evidence supporting your false claim. Only your opinion
which is incorrect.

 

That is a collectivist statement as it applies to all of the people of the United States and not just to a few or one individual in the United States. It addresses the common needs and desires of all of the people of the United States as opposed to individualism what would focus on just the few elite members of society.

 

The geoist proposal is completely logical and supported by the most respected economists in the western world. I think you would support it if you understood it.

Taxation can be a tool to provide a just distribution of land. But if you want to have a honest discussion about the distribution of land you will have to stop referring to it as property because the word “property” covers much more then just land.

Land can be taxed up to 100% of its rental value without ever causing a reduction in land usage. In a world without landownership, imagine two competitors arguing over who gets exclusive use of a parcel of land; the government simply settles this argument taking bids from these competitors as to which is willing to pay the most for the privilege of excluding everyone else; with each citizen of the community receiving an equal portion of what the top bidder ends up paying. The land parcel will no longer be available to the citizens of the community but they will each receive compensation for the loss of their right to that particular parcel. Land value taxation is always affordable because it is simply the community taking the rent that competitors openly offer.

The geoist proposal of using land value taxation as a method of distributing land among community members does not exempt government from paying the tax. If private individuals do not pay the tax then the government must pay it. In other words, if government levies the tax higher than what private individuals are willing to pay, government is declaring that it wants to use the land for public purposes (for a courthouse, maintenance facility, sewer plant, etc.) and is willing to pay the taxes at that level in order to obtain that land. Again, the citizens of the community will receive a portion of what government is paying in land taxes in order that they are compensated for the loss of their right to use that land.

But how do you compensate those who are excluded from “what nature provides” unless you tax that value away from the land holder and give that compensation to the individuals who are being excluded. Also, what about the value that government provided infrastructure and services gives to locations. Land near a major roadway intersection can be worth many times what land just a short distance away is worth. Who gets this land that much more desirable because of this public infrastructure? Doesn't it seem fair that the person who gets the most desirable land in the community pay compensation for that valuable privilege? Shouldn't the people who have to settle for the least desirable land get some compensation from those who get the most desirable locations? Land value taxation is simply a tool to collect and distribute this compensation so that each individual in the community benefits equally from the land within the community.

 

Do you see collectivism as a threat to democracy?
"Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used and has been used as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history and all human societies in practice contain elements of both individualism and collectivism. Some examples of collectivist democracies include Portugal, India, and Japan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

 

You keep making the same error. It is true that collectivism can be Totalitarianism.

What is false is that all Totalitarian institutions are necessarily collectivist.

Also, collectivist institutions are not necessarily Totalitarian.

 

What a stupid statement.

Inflow gets cut -> Sales value declines

Land's current assessed value is based on its owner being able to keep most of its rent (real or imputed). The less rent the land's owner can keep, the less the land will sell for.

Ultimately you just tax the full rental value.

 

Most land is not rented in America. The person's home is not rented to anyone and no income is derived from the ownership with which to pay the taxes on it. Before taxes can be paid there must be income to pay the taxes and ownership of land does not imply any income being derived from it to pay for the taxes.

 

No, this isn't a Collectivist statement. There's no mention of central planners and
no mention of diminishing Liberty.

Here's a definition of Collectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Please notice that it doesn't equate with your attempt to make "We the People"
as a Collectivist state. In fact, "We the People" is diametrically opposed to
Collectivism.

Not true. "We the People" definitely favors individualism which is far, far
better and rational than any form of Collectivism.

Collectivism doesn't work for the individual. It only works for the Central
Planners who want to control the individual.

 

No it doesn't. It focuses on the government. The community, society, nation, etc.
is irrelevant to Collectivism. Total power over all is the goal of Collectivism.
Collectivism is definitely a threat to the individual.

Collectivism is bad for the individual or any person/group seeking Liberty instead
of a controlling government.

Collectivism is a horrible, terrible, no good very bad thing.

 

You just made my point.

I NEVER said it was. Not once.

Why? Because I understand Collectivism. You honestly and truly
don't. I mean that kindly. You really don't.

 

From your Wikipedia source.

No where in that statement do I read any statement about "central planning" being a necessity for collectivism. Did you simply assume central planning was necessary for collectivism because it's often how those seeking power use "collectivism" as a tool for their nefarious political purposes? I would argue that central planning is actually juxtaposed to the principles of collectivism because it's always been used to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few as opposed to ensuring the welfare of the people of a nation.

As a libertarian I believe that the economy of a nation belongs to all of the people of the nation and that all should benefit from it. When 1% of the non-workers are acquiring 30% of the wealth created by the actual workers while 40% of the workers don't receive enough compensation for their labor (the foundation for the natural right of property) then I see a serious problem with how the economy exists under the statutory laws. Every worker should be able to afford those things necessary for their basic "support and comfort" as addressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, that addressed the Natural Right of Property. As Locke also explicitly states when a person has too much wealth then they're violating the "Natural Right of Property" of society as a whole.

Laws that address this don't require "central planning" but instead require laws that ensure that everyone in society benefits from the economy of the nation. No full time worker in America should ever require "welfare" assistance, either public or private, because they have a Right to live off of their labor. That is not about central planning but instead it's about protecting the "right of property" of the person established by their labor.

 

Having a right to property doesn't mean that one has a right to other people's property. In fact, having a right to other people's property is a violation of their right to property.

 

Pure socialism is bad because it does not address human nature. Socialism encourages people to do as little as possible. There is a subset of society that is capable of being productive but will not produce unless forced. This mean that either the state has step in and force this subset to be productive or to require the productive members of society to be more productive. Pure socialism has the trait of stifling ambition. It makes no sense for one to provide better goods and services when such accomplishments will not be rewarded. Finally, pure socialism would require for a strong state that micromanages the economy which can easily lead to state of tyranny.

 

No I didn't. You said "Totalitarianism = Collectivism" and this is simply not true.

Yes you did. You claimed that Totalitarianism = Collectivism. When you state this it means that A = B.

Just restate or clarify your point and we can end this silliness.

My understanding of what you are "trying" to say is that Collectivism often leads to a form of Totalitarianism.

If I have you wrong then just clarify.

 

Can you name a Collectivist state the doesn't have central planners? Do you know
what central planners.

At least you finally realized that Totalitarianism, the gist of my post, is Collectivist.

 

Correct. Totalitarianism is a form of Collectivism.

 

I don't think I can name any state that ISN'T collectivist whether it's totalitarian or not, so I don't see what point you are trying to make. Japan is a collectivist society with a democratic government and mixed economy. You can find that in your wiki definition. For the general welfare of the people. Ayn Rand is the only one who said collectivism is totalitarianism. She has an ideology which I don't agree with, definitions aside. I go by the actual definition, which states multiple forms of collectivism, and also agrees with reality.

 

"Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization.

"Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Prioritizing the self over related social institutions can be at least as destructive to society as the threats from collectivism that you allege. Those who prioritize their own self interest over that of their family, for example, are also capable of committing great evil.

 

I would state that Collectivism is often a form of Totalitarianism ... but not always.

Totalitarianism sometimes exists without being collectivist.

 

Example of such? Country?