Socialism Helps Prevent Obesity

[bilby]

Except for education these are all natural monopolies where meaningful competition isn't possible anyway, and even education approximates a natural monopoly. Note, also, that neither firefighting nor law enforcement is a means of production.

- - - Updated - - -

While education, police, fire departments, and etc. are crucial components of a good society, they are not means of production. Means of production are inputs used to produce economic value. Examples are facilities, machines, tools, intellect, trade marks, and etc. When means of production are owned by a collective, it is socialism.

Objection: I would call education a means of production. Likewise the stuff she didn't list: Utilities.

"Means of production" Is an overly narrow descriptor when talking about modern concepts of socialism. Really there's no reason fire fighting couldn't be a competitive market.

It was. It sucked. So it stopped being.

A competitive market in fire fighting looks a lot like demanding money with menaces, crossed with arson, with a smattering of people refusing to help the clearly needy.

It really, really, sucks.

 

[untermensche]

Socialism comes from the idea that there can be "good" and "bad" societies.

And it's purpose is to make society better. Not make individuals richer. Not give individuals more power. Not place some individuals in charge of others.

Those that want to live in a decent society are socialists.

They support things like public parks and public libraries and free public education.

Anything feasible to make society better.

 

[Axulus]

Not place some individuals in charge of others.

Those that want to live in a decent society are socialists.

They support things like public parks and public libraries and free public education.

In other words, putting individuals in charge of collecting money and property from others, with the threat of violence for failure to comply.

Don't try to sugar coat what you are proposing. Accept what it is and then ask "is this worth me personally going up to someone, with a gun in my hand, and collecting from them their share of the library cost which they refuse to pay?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not place some individuals in charge of others.

Those that want to live in a decent society are socialists.

They support things like public parks and public libraries and free public education.

In other words, putting individuals in charge of collecting money and property from others, with the threat of violence for failure to comply.

Don't try to sugar coat what you are proposing. Accept what it is and then ask "is this worth me personally going up to someone, with a gun in my hand, and collecting from them their share of the library cost which they refuse to pay?"

*strains eyes while in record rolling*

 

[dismal]

The word 'Socialism' is just like the word 'Fanny' - it has HILARIOUSLY different meanings in US English vs the English spoken everywhere else in the world, leading to laughs galore.

When an American says that European socialists want the government to own and control the means of production, they are exactly as clueless as when the TV show 'The Nanny' was broadcast in the UK with a theme song that loudly emphasized the word 'Fanny' - the European English speakers were variously horrified, shocked, and amused by the unimaginable level of cultural insensitivity that was on display.

Merriam-Webster be damned; The Oxford English Dictionary defines Socialism thus:

(my bold)

It goes on to say:

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

(again, my bold)

Language describes concepts, and it does so in such a way that there are significant differences between the language as used in different regions. Concepts are not defined by the language used to describe them; Merriam-Webster cannot tell English socialists what they believe, nor that they are incorrect to describe themselves as 'socialist' while failing to comply with the way that word is used in America. So stick that up your fanny.

When a word stops having agreed upon meaning it becomes useless in communication. Hence, dictionaries exist to standardize the definitions of words. Using a non dictionary definition of a word is more trouble than it's worth if the goal is to communicate. If someone insists on doing it one must conclude the goal is to mislead.

 

[untermensche]

Not place some individuals in charge of others.

Those that want to live in a decent society are socialists.

They support things like public parks and public libraries and free public education.

In other words, putting individuals in charge of collecting money and property from others, with the threat of violence for failure to comply.

Don't try to sugar coat what you are proposing. Accept what it is and then ask "is this worth me personally going up to someone, with a gun in my hand, and collecting from them their share of the library cost which they refuse to pay?"

Putting all that in the open so all can see.

Not into dark holes like we have now.

You want a decent society with no funding?

Grow up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The word 'Socialism' is just like the word 'Fanny' - it has HILARIOUSLY different meanings in US English vs the English spoken everywhere else in the world, leading to laughs galore.

When an American says that European socialists want the government to own and control the means of production, they are exactly as clueless as when the TV show 'The Nanny' was broadcast in the UK with a theme song that loudly emphasized the word 'Fanny' - the European English speakers were variously horrified, shocked, and amused by the unimaginable level of cultural insensitivity that was on display.

But it isn't just UK English vs. US English. It is practical application seen many times.

Two people look at the same system, and both use the word "socialist" to describe it. The first is using it as a criticism so therefore he is using it wrong. The second is using it as a compliment so therefore he is using it right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The word 'Socialism' is just like the word 'Fanny' - it has HILARIOUSLY different meanings in US English vs the English spoken everywhere else in the world, leading to laughs galore.

When an American says that European socialists want the government to own and control the means of production, they are exactly as clueless as when the TV show 'The Nanny' was broadcast in the UK with a theme song that loudly emphasized the word 'Fanny' - the European English speakers were variously horrified, shocked, and amused by the unimaginable level of cultural insensitivity that was on display.

But it isn't just UK English vs. US English. It is practical application seen many times.

Two people look at the same system, and both use the word "socialist" to describe it. The first is using it as a criticism so therefore he is using it wrong. The second is using it as a compliment so therefore he is using it right.

The Venezuelan government seized private property/corporations for their own. That isn't socialism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But it isn't just UK English vs. US English. It is practical application seen many times.

Two people look at the same system, and both use the word "socialist" to describe it. The first is using it as a criticism so therefore he is using it wrong. The second is using it as a compliment so therefore he is using it right.

The Venezuelan government seized private property/corporations for their own. That isn't socialism.

Given the claim that the government IS the people (something I don't personally agree with but am told many times is true) doesn't that mean if the government has seized it therefore the people have seized it? How would the people express their collective ownership?

 

[dismal]

But it isn't just UK English vs. US English. It is practical application seen many times.

Two people look at the same system, and both use the word "socialist" to describe it. The first is using it as a criticism so therefore he is using it wrong. The second is using it as a compliment so therefore he is using it right.

The Venezuelan government seized private property/corporations for their own. That isn't socialism.

Cite?

It seems to fit with the dictionary definition.

Definition of socialism

1 :any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 :a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The dictionary doesn't mention the magic unicorns that will arise to ensure the government manages the means of production well.

If you are operating under the assumption that the unicorns will show up perhaps you should refer to what you believe in as "unicorn socialism" to enhance communications.

 

[Underseer]

One of the clear benefits of Socialism is that health issues which plague Capitalist countries - like obesity, diabetes, etc. - are mostly unheard of. In Venezuela, Socialism has reaped the wonders of the Maduro Diet.

Nearly 75% of the population involuntarily lost an average of 19 pounds last year, according to a survey released this year by three of Venezuela’s largest universities and a foundation that tracks nutrition. Venezuelans call the weight loss the “Maduro diet,” a sarcastic reference to life under President Nicolas Maduro.

In North Korea, the people are spared the health risks of meat.

And more righteously, the leaders of Socialist countries take upon themselves the risk of overeating so their people can be spared the burden.

Bring on the revolution!

As opposed to America, which is the wealthiest nation in the world, and yet still has a large number of hungry children?

Never mind that you're clearly confused about what socialism is or what effects any of it has on anything, if socialism causes starvation and capitalism is the economic antithesis of socialism, then you can show data that correlates starvation or hunger with the type of government, yet here you are using anecdotal data instead.

If we accept your premise that we should accept or reject political and economic arrangements based on how many people starve, then we should all be democratic socialists (e.g. Roosevelt's New Deal, modern Europe). They have demonstrably less hungry people living on the edge than hpercaptialist countries like America or despotic hellholes like North Korea.

 

[LordKiran]

The word 'Socialism' is just like the word 'Fanny' - it has HILARIOUSLY different meanings in US English vs the English spoken everywhere else in the world, leading to laughs galore.

When an American says that European socialists want the government to own and control the means of production, they are exactly as clueless as when the TV show 'The Nanny' was broadcast in the UK with a theme song that loudly emphasized the word 'Fanny' - the European English speakers were variously horrified, shocked, and amused by the unimaginable level of cultural insensitivity that was on display.

Merriam-Webster be damned; The Oxford English Dictionary defines Socialism thus:

(my bold)

It goes on to say:

(again, my bold)

Language describes concepts, and it does so in such a way that there are significant differences between the language as used in different regions. Concepts are not defined by the language used to describe them; Merriam-Webster cannot tell English socialists what they believe, nor that they are incorrect to describe themselves as 'socialist' while failing to comply with the way that word is used in America. So stick that up your fanny.

When a word stops having agreed upon meaning it becomes useless in communication. Hence, dictionaries exist to standardize the definitions of words. Using a non dictionary definition of a word is more trouble than it's worth if the goal is to communicate. If someone insists on doing it one must conclude the goal is to mislead.

The meaning of words is not determined by the dictionary. The dictionary's definitions are determined by how we use words. I know it sucks sometimes when you disagree with how a common word is used/pronounced (Its Kair-ra-Mel, not Kar-mul) But words and their meanings are formed/changed from the bottom up, not the top down. Get used to it.

 

[dismal]

The meaning of words is not determined by the dictionary. The dictionary's definitions are determined by how we use words. I know it sucks sometimes when you disagree with how a common word is used/pronounced (Its Kair-ra-Mel, not Kar-mul) But words and their meanings are formed/changed from the bottom up, not the top down. Get used to it.

Oh, OK, then you are a total asshat fuckstick moron. But, don't worry, when I say those words it means you're really really smart and good looking. Bottoms up, bitches.

 

[bilby]

The word 'Socialism' is just like the word 'Fanny' - it has HILARIOUSLY different meanings in US English vs the English spoken everywhere else in the world, leading to laughs galore.

When an American says that European socialists want the government to own and control the means of production, they are exactly as clueless as when the TV show 'The Nanny' was broadcast in the UK with a theme song that loudly emphasized the word 'Fanny' - the European English speakers were variously horrified, shocked, and amused by the unimaginable level of cultural insensitivity that was on display.

Merriam-Webster be damned; The Oxford English Dictionary defines Socialism thus:

(my bold)

It goes on to say:

(again, my bold)

Language describes concepts, and it does so in such a way that there are significant differences between the language as used in different regions. Concepts are not defined by the language used to describe them; Merriam-Webster cannot tell English socialists what they believe, nor that they are incorrect to describe themselves as 'socialist' while failing to comply with the way that word is used in America. So stick that up your fanny.

When a word stops having agreed upon meaning it becomes useless in communication. Hence, dictionaries exist to standardize the definitions of words. Using a non dictionary definition of a word is more trouble than it's worth if the goal is to communicate. If someone insists on doing it one must conclude the goal is to mislead.

So what do you do when the dictionaries disagree, as in this case?

I completely agree that people need to stop using the word 'socialism' in trans-national discussion, as it simply leads to confusion.

 

[LordKiran]

The meaning of words is not determined by the dictionary. The dictionary's definitions are determined by how we use words. I know it sucks sometimes when you disagree with how a common word is used/pronounced (Its Kair-ra-Mel, not Kar-mul) But words and their meanings are formed/changed from the bottom up, not the top down. Get used to it.

Oh, OK, then you are a total asshat fuckstick moron. But, don't worry, when I say those words it means you're really really smart and good looking. Bottoms up, bitches.

/shrug whatever works for you so long as your meaning is clear to the recipient. Though I would think having to clarify what you mean with so many words every time you talk to someone would probably grow tiresome for you.

 

[dismal]

When a word stops having agreed upon meaning it becomes useless in communication. Hence, dictionaries exist to standardize the definitions of words. Using a non dictionary definition of a word is more trouble than it's worth if the goal is to communicate. If someone insists on doing it one must conclude the goal is to mislead.

So what do you do when the dictionaries disagree, as in this case?

I completely agree that people need to stop using the word 'socialism' in trans-national discussion, as it simply leads to confusion.

I don't think the dictionaries are that far apart. In this case.

 

[Axulus]

In other words, putting individuals in charge of collecting money and property from others, with the threat of violence for failure to comply.

Don't try to sugar coat what you are proposing. Accept what it is and then ask "is this worth me personally going up to someone, with a gun in my hand, and collecting from them their share of the library cost which they refuse to pay?"

Putting all that in the open so all can see.

Not into dark holes like we have now.

You want a decent society with no funding?

Grow up.

I'm willing to help fund the library. Nice try at signaling your moral superiority, nose held high in the air. You, as an individual, want to control other individuals with your "superior" morals, just admit it.

 

[bilby]

So what do you do when the dictionaries disagree, as in this case?

I completely agree that people need to stop using the word 'socialism' in trans-national discussion, as it simply leads to confusion.

I don't think the dictionaries are that far apart. In this case.

Given that the entire existence of this discussion is based on the fact that people are in conflict over which definition to use, it would appear that in this case, you are wrong.

I would be quite interested to see a discussion of the various benefits and harms of the more moderate political and economic ideologies on these boards; but one cannot happen because sooner rather than later someone uses the word 'socialist' in a positive way, and is assumed by others to be supportive of Communist Dictatorship; or someone says something nice about market economics and is immediately assumed to be a rabid Randian Objectivist.

Of course it's much easier to win a contest in which your opponent is an unreasonable extremist; but it's not really a win if that's only true in your imagination.

People who refer to themselves as 'socialist' are, the vast majority of the time, social democrats in the European mould, rather than communist totalitarians. And if we are honest, we all know that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Means of production" Is an overly narrow descriptor when talking about modern concepts of socialism. Really there's no reason fire fighting couldn't be a competitive market.

There's a very good reason it's not competitive: response time.

- - - Updated - - -

The Venezuelan government seized private property/corporations for their own. That isn't socialism.

It's what the socialists want to have happen.

 

[untermensche]

Putting all that in the open so all can see.

Not into dark holes like we have now.

You want a decent society with no funding?

Grow up.

I'm willing to help fund the library. Nice try at signaling your moral superiority, nose held high in the air. You, as an individual, want to control other individuals with your "superior" morals, just admit it.

If I go out to dinner with 10 other people and demand they pay for the meals they ate am I trying to control them?