Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

Socialism starts with a social contract, not a capital contract.

The public sector owns and controls its means of production which include the coercive use of force of the State.

Our social contract provides for respect of rights in private property; only some social contracts do not.

 

Income transfers through taxation accomplish that end in our republic.

The point about our preamble is that it enumerates social goals not capital goals; only the right is usually that cognitively dissonant; what is your excuse?

 

Thank you for explaining how you reached your fallacy of false analogy.

Water, should signify our economy as a whole, the hydrogen and the oxygen are the socialism and capitalism Parts that make up the whole; and, they are inseparable in our economy or we won't have our economy.

 

Yet it still leaves out the most important part of the definition of Socialism, the government ownership or control of production, distribution, and wealth. Social programs and regulation does not change who makes the decision about what to produce, how much to produce and what should the price be of goods and services. Those decisions are key to the definition of socialism, and if they are made by private enterprise it means the system is capitalist. If nothing else is considered it is as obvious as the nose on your face that it is not socialism; and as Mises said, there is no such thing as a mixed economic system. It is either one or the other.

 

Government starts with a social contract, both capitalist and socialist governments. The existence of a social contract does not define capitalism/socialism.

The public sector does not produce, it consumes private capital through taxation.

Correct, one of the important issues of capitalism.

 

Can you explain why that definition should be preferred over any other definition; only seems to aid and abet your special pleading, but does not help us discover any sublime Truth (value) through argumentation?

 

Income transfers that are funded by capitalism.

Yet nothing in that preamble tells us it is socialist in nature. In fact nothing in the preamble discusses what kind of economic system we should have. Since the word "social" can define certain issues in any kind of government, and since there are social issues in every kind of government, to suggest that the presence of the word "social" infers, implies or even hints that the economic system is socialism is ignorance of the most profound kind.

Whatever cognitive dissonance the right may have exists equally on the left. Both extremes are equally evil.

 

It is only your cognitive dissonance that prevents you from acknowledging that a true AnCap would not have a social contract, but capital contracts much like a Firm.

 

So what does all this have to do with solving poverty?

 

Wrong analogy on your part. Hydrogen and oxygen are simply two parts of a whole. Neither can be considered water thus there is no water until they are combined. Your error is suggesting that part of an economic system (the social programs) can be construed to be the whole is fallacious. For the economic system to be one or the other, all of the major parts must exist together. Since the most important element of socialism,government ownership or control of production, distribution and wealth, do not exist together in our economic system is absolute proof we are not socialist. And since our government protects private property, individual rights, private enterprise making decisions about production and distribution, the parts together tell us we are capitalist.

 

Because it is the definition found in all of the recognized reference books which discusses the issue. What you have done is put the cart before the horse. You created in your mind what you wanted socialism to be and when you checked the definition and it did not meet with your expectations you decided to throw out the baby with the bath water, ie you threw out the recognized definitions which have existed since records have been kept. Even your Wiki source tells you that the important element of socialism is government ownership/control of production, distribution and wealth.
Therefore I will continue to use established criteria to determine what is fact and what is fiction. Your solution has grabbed hold of the fiction and you have held onto it till death do you part.

 

Please tell me what part of the definition suggests socialism.

SOCIAL CONTRACT
: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each ​

 

Poverty for the most part has been solved in the US. Most of our citizens have what they need in the way of food, clothing, shelter and even some luxury items like TV, autos, computers et al. These citizens which are presumed to be poor in relation to those who make more than they do and have a better life standard. IOW most of our poverty is relative, not absolute of profound.

There are some who slip through the cracks in our safety net social programs, but they are the exception, not the rule. True poverty is almost a passe' issue in the US.

For example, I am "poor" in relation to the top10% or 20% of our people. Yet I own my own home free and clear, my automobile without a payment, a wide screen color TV, a computer (or 2) and I have sufficient income to buy all the food and the variety of food I want. So effectively I am relatively poor. Those we tend to call poor in the US are those who fall into the bottom quintile of income and they are "poor" relative to those who are in the top 4 quintiles.

I have lived in various places all over the world. I define poverty, true poverty, as what I witnessed in India, or Africa; owning only the clothes on ones back, having only a place on the side walk or street to sleep. insufficient food to eat and that mostly through baksheesh (coins collected begging, no other shelter and absolutely nothing luxurious.

 

I don't think anybody is talking about absolute poverty, we are talking about relative poverty, and relative poverty is the lack of wealth and/or the ability to obtain wealth. Thought that was made clear earlier on.

We don't live in India or Africa, and comparing poverty levels in one economy that is completely different than another is intellectually dishonest. Suggesting our peasants are better off than the next country's peasants doesn't eliminate the fact that we have peasants that for some reason or another, cannot assimilate. There is still a large percentage of the population living in poverty (relative or otherwise) that cannot and never will escape, is evident that there is a problem.

The fact that there is such a divide, that is continuing to expand between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor, and that most of what they have is given/provided to them by the government, to keep them complacent, and non competitive, doesn't mean they are "doing just fine" therefor should be ignored is nothing but condescending, don't you think?

 

Thread closed ~ Exceeded post capacity.