5 ms·

Anyone care to refute the proposition rather than just downvote?

b_tterc_p 7y ago
1) many people depend on government services 2) calling anyone who recognizes utility of government services is unnecessary and just incorrect 3) suggesting that everyone can take of themselves is simply not true. Some people need help. 4) tone is dickish
- sbenitoj 7y ago
  1) does that mean they’re entitled to them? Why can’t these needs be met by those people, their families, or simply remain unmet? 2) socialism = redistribution of wealth; govt services are redistribution of wealth 3) didn’t say everyone can take care of themselves, many people can’t take care of themselves now even WITH govt assistance, it’s completely beside the point 4) true
  - detaro 7y ago
    Patent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    (1) They are entitled to them because the government is an extension of the will of the people, and the people entitled certain classes to certain benefits. We, the people, can change this. Until we do, they are and will remain entitled. People payed in to provide these benefits and these benefits are being rendered. That said they're not all "take" and no "give." As a sibling posted, patent protection incentivizes the inclusion of invention in the public domain in exchange for temporary monopoly. Copyright law and IP law give rise to whole industries in and of themselves. All of which rely on law enforcement, on fire protection, on education, on healthcare, etc. These things cost money. (2) Classical Socialism is not redistribution of wealth. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Wealth is not the means of production it is the ends. Socialism in the public discourse in the US is yet another definition, basically "capitalism with guard rails" where society ensures a minimum standard of health and well-being for everyone so that we can all rise to the level of our abilities in a meritocratic way instead of plutocratically. (3) Yes, you are correct, however I personally believe in the "I'd rather 90% of my contributions squandered than see someone die unnecessarily because they fell through the cracks" -- it's really easy to end up there through a series of unfortunate events and I'm not willing to write these people off. (4) Dick-ish tone or not (and it happens to me by accident from time to time) you do deserve level-headed reply, though I do only speak for myself.
mwfunk 7y ago
If someone uses hyperbole, scare words, and sweeping generalizations about complicated issues, rational people often assume that (a) that person is trying to bullshit them, or (b) someone else has successfully bullshitted (bullshat?) that person, but they haven't realized it yet.
- sbenitoj 7y ago
  How do you define socialism?
  - opnitro 7y ago
    Communal ownership of the means of production? Social democratic redistribution schemes are not socialist.
    - sbenitoj 7y ago
      Social democratic redistribution (of the means of production) are in fact socialist, which is what’s going on here.
      - opnitro 7y ago
        The means of production are _not_ being redistributed via taxes and foodstamps. Apple still owns the factories, the IP, the land, the offices, etc.
        sbenitoj 7y ago
        Yes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there. Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts). So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
        7y ago
karlakush 7y ago
This forum is designed to make it difficult for people to submit low-quality comments. A side-effect of this is that it's difficult to submit any comment without the support of the forum's power users. Some time long before I got here, it seems there was a probably a power struggle that the socialists won. Now, it's impossible for anybody else to break in. The socialists are the only ones with the ability to downvote and the ability to flag comments, and they use that power to great effect to silence most dissent. All of this is to say don't expect an explanation. It's much easier to shadow-ban you than refute you.

1) many people depend on government services 2) calling anyone who recognizes utility of government services is unnecessary and just incorrect 3) suggesting that everyone can take of themselves is simply not true. Some people need help. 4) tone is dickish

sbenitoj 7y ago
1) does that mean they’re entitled to them? Why can’t these needs be met by those people, their families, or simply remain unmet? 2) socialism = redistribution of wealth; govt services are redistribution of wealth 3) didn’t say everyone can take care of themselves, many people can’t take care of themselves now even WITH govt assistance, it’s completely beside the point 4) true
- detaro 7y ago
  Patent protection, law enforcement, safe international finance and goods market access are just some examples of "govt services" Apple benefits greatly from.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  (1) They are entitled to them because the government is an extension of the will of the people, and the people entitled certain classes to certain benefits. We, the people, can change this. Until we do, they are and will remain entitled. People payed in to provide these benefits and these benefits are being rendered. That said they're not all "take" and no "give." As a sibling posted, patent protection incentivizes the inclusion of invention in the public domain in exchange for temporary monopoly. Copyright law and IP law give rise to whole industries in and of themselves. All of which rely on law enforcement, on fire protection, on education, on healthcare, etc. These things cost money. (2) Classical Socialism is not redistribution of wealth. Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Wealth is not the means of production it is the ends. Socialism in the public discourse in the US is yet another definition, basically "capitalism with guard rails" where society ensures a minimum standard of health and well-being for everyone so that we can all rise to the level of our abilities in a meritocratic way instead of plutocratically. (3) Yes, you are correct, however I personally believe in the "I'd rather 90% of my contributions squandered than see someone die unnecessarily because they fell through the cracks" -- it's really easy to end up there through a series of unfortunate events and I'm not willing to write these people off. (4) Dick-ish tone or not (and it happens to me by accident from time to time) you do deserve level-headed reply, though I do only speak for myself.

mwfunk 7y ago

If someone uses hyperbole, scare words, and sweeping generalizations about complicated issues, rational people often assume that (a) that person is trying to bullshit them, or (b) someone else has successfully bullshitted (bullshat?) that person, but they haven't realized it yet.

sbenitoj 7y ago
How do you define socialism?
- opnitro 7y ago
  Communal ownership of the means of production? Social democratic redistribution schemes are not socialist.
  - sbenitoj 7y ago
    Social democratic redistribution (of the means of production) are in fact socialist, which is what’s going on here.
    - opnitro 7y ago
      The means of production are _not_ being redistributed via taxes and foodstamps. Apple still owns the factories, the IP, the land, the offices, etc.
      - sbenitoj 7y ago
        Yes, and they moved specific means of production to Jersey in order to sell their services from there. Now there are complaints that Apple actually owes more taxes to USG (and other govts). So which one is it — does Apple own the means of production (and thus what they did is totally legal) or do they not own the means of production (and thus this is socialism)?
        7y ago

karlakush 7y ago

This forum is designed to make it difficult for people to submit low-quality comments. A side-effect of this is that it's difficult to submit any comment without the support of the forum's power users. Some time long before I got here, it seems there was a probably a power struggle that the socialists won. Now, it's impossible for anybody else to break in. The socialists are the only ones with the ability to downvote and the ability to flag comments, and they use that power to great effect to silence most dissent. All of this is to say don't expect an explanation. It's much easier to shadow-ban you than refute you.