Thread: Universal Food, Universal Clothing, and Universal ISP

OK it's time to remind everyone once again that liberal progressives as they exist in America are socialists in disguise. Socialism is poison and a taste of it will just make you a little dead (sick).

If government is going to be able to control away the bad parts of life then they will have to be given the power to control all of our lives.

Here is the link for the article that goes along with this thread:

PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL SOCIALISM by by John Lawrence

Summed up:

The author attacks the socialist argument: your wealth should not decide what life-important services you are able to get.

His counter-argument is that there is no universal definition of what is to be considered as life-important, so therefore, ultimately with this arbitrary socialist reasoning, you would end up with communism.

This can be seen as an intellectual argument against governmental influence in general, or as an argument for anarchy.

Some examples are given to back up this position, but unfortunately, these arguments are purely based on his own theories (or the theories he finds convenient). Especially when he talks about car breakdown, and motivation for staying healthy as a function of governmental health funding, he is completely off target.

There are no huge studies showing an inverse relationship between governmental health care funding, and the fitness level of the population. If anything, U.S healthcare is the most privatized system of the western world, and at the same time, the U.S population is at highest risk for dying of obesity and fitness-related diseases, like ischemic heart disease/coronary artery disease.

I see a lot of positive sides of privatized health care, but I fail to see the hypothetical motivational issues listed by this author. Also consider that obese individuals are exposed to massive negative attention in their daily life, and that there are plenty of incentives to do something about it. The reason they don't is a very interesting field of speculation, just as you can wonder why obesity-linked diabetes has a stronger genetic component than diabetes partly caused by inherited immune system traits. The strongest advocates of "free will" should simply shut the fuck up, IMHO. (And by the way, I am a lean endurance guy)

I am not giving any lecture here on what is the proper amount of governmental influence, because I think the proper amount is a simple and cynical result of a combination of which interests are prevalent in a population, and which political rethorics are dominating in the culture. How capitalist and how socialist a society is, depends on what is seen as life-important in the culture as a whole, and individually. Not what any fundamentalistic-dogmatic freedom fighter thinks is justified in some online article.

A well-written article and a good read and thanks for posting it, and then thanks for summarazing it.

However, being fairly left-of-centre in a country with a pretty sturdy safety net, I don't buy the 'thin end of the wedge' argument one bit. It's always the argument against policies that are urgently needed by many, used by the few who don't need them at all. It goes, "If we do this seemingly rational thing, then this totally irrational thing will follow because they are fundamentally the same". It's an effective way to scare people away from voting for something many of them actually would benefit from.

"If we let women vote, then what's next? Children? Pets? Can our furniture vote next? It's the thin end of the wedge".

"Oh OK, if you think we should leave Iraq then I guess we'll just disband the entire military, withdraw troops from all over the world and become totally issolationist until someone invades us because we have no armed forces."

"What? Ban small handguns? That would just be the thin end of the wedge. Next it would be larger guns like hunting rifles, then knives and slingshots, and then ultimately you'll be going to jail for holding a baseball bat in a public park because it "could be seen" as a weapon".

People who advocate, for example, universal healthcare... want universal healthcare. Not a domineering Soviet beurocracy commandeering all means of production and throwing us all in gulags. They want the one thing they are asking for. No wedge... health care.

All of our countires all have child labour laws, State or Provincial employment standards, minimum wages, welfare, workers comp., maternity leave, fair-hiring practices, the legal right to strike, to join a union, to seek compensation for being unfairly fired or not hired... we live with and for the most part benifit from these government services. I"m sure many here don't like one or two of them, but society as a whole definitely does, and would not want to get rid of them. Why does the author imagine that all these socialist policies we have had all our lives are normal, but one more will tip the scales into total chaos?

Both Dr. Knuckles and Chu Chu have posted some legitimate failings of the author.

I also do not like slippery slope arguments.

So I would say that the consitution authorizes congress to promote the general welfare. And social programs that only benefit certain members of the population fail to benefit the general population in a significant way.

Next I would say that programs that offer people handouts in the short term but cause dependence do not promote anybodies welfare.

Yes I like a certain amount of safety nets but my preference would be for these programs to be privately run, and then later when gov gets involved for moneys given people to be taken from their social security before it is taken from the public coffers, and then if money is taken from the public coffers for the money to be a loan.

I think it comes down to the old 'better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail' vs. 'Better a hundred innocent men go to jail than one fuilty man go free'.

He's saying 'better a hundred people who need help not get it than one person be able to abuse the system', but I feel 'better a hundred people be able to abuse the system than one person who needs help go without.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

I think it comes down to the old 'better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail' vs. 'Better a hundred innocent men go to jail than one fuilty man go free'.

He's saying 'better a hundred people who need help not get it than one person be able to abuse the system', but I feel 'better a hundred people be able to abuse the system than one person who needs help go without.

No I was not saying that at all.

We need to aim for giving all the people who really need assistance some assisitance and for not giving any people who will abuse it assistance.

That is exactly why it is better to let people borrow from their own social security benefits, and pay it back.

Most people who take welfare were middle class working people and will be again. Giving them money for free encourages some of them to give up on working for themselves. When they know they need to pay it back they still have their dignity, they still know we believe they can make it on their own - eventually, and they are not a drain on the system.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

"What? Ban small handguns? That would just be the thin end of the wedge. Next it would be larger guns like hunting rifles, then knives and slingshots, and then ultimately you'll be going to jail for holding a baseball bat in a public park because it "could be seen" as a weapon".

After Britain outlawed private gun ownership, they started outlawing cutlery.

So the argument against gun control was valid.

Good article. I personally don't want the gov't trying do things for me that I could do myself.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

Why does the author imagine that all these socialist policies we have had all our lives are normal, but one more will tip the scales into total chaos?

Usurpation of 14% of the economy by the government is one really good reason.

Needless to say, the other experiments the US has made in the socialist cesspool have always been extraordinarily over the projected budget, and the solution has always been to steal more money from the people instead of saying the program is a failure.

Once the bureaucrats get their incompetent hands on 14% of the US economy, they're never going to let go, and going to the doctor or dentist will be like going to the DMV. I'll pass. If someone feels sorry for some poor slob begging alms for a testicle prothesis, let them dig into their own pockets.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Usurpation of 14% of the economy by the government is one really good reason.

Needless to say, the other experiments the US has made in the socialist cesspool have always been extraordinarily over the projected budget, and the solution has always been to steal more money from the people instead of saying the program is a failure.

Once the bureaucrats get their incompetent hands on 14% of the US economy, they're never going to let go, and going to the doctor or dentist will be like going to the DMV. I'll pass. If someone feels sorry for some poor slob begging alms for a testicle prothesis, let them dig into their own pockets.

Logical as usual FFA.


The history of US taxation (and France's) is certainly a good argument against the arguement that the slippery slope will not occur.


And speaking of social experementation what are the repurcussions when social experiments go wrong. Would anyone want to list some social experiemnents of the past that have gone horribly wrong? I can start with one: BF Skinner wrote Walden Pond II in which he advocated putting all newborns in incubators with high levels of oxygen (instead of with their parents) so they would grow up to be really smart. Of course when newborns are given high levels of oxygen it blinds them. His entire book of utopian social engineering would have been disasterous.

There are unfortunate people out there who need assistance. But they certianly don't need to have cash thrown at them that was stolen from people who produce more. Let them borrow from their own social security benefits and pay it back later.