# My political philosophy: Practical Democratic Socialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898 "2005-06-26T06:28:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/21 "2005-06-28T00:20:23Z")
**Aeschines** , what purpose do corporations (private business? Are you making a distinction between corporations and other forms of private business) play in the PDS system? You make statements such as this > [@](#): > > I believe that other industries ought to be state-owned or controlled to a much higher degree (domestic airlines), but the vast majority should be controlled right about at the level they are now. > > As a general rule, the less control, the better. Stupid, counterproductive control is bad. That lead me to believe that you see some sort of correlation between more control and “stupid, counterproductive control”. However, this appears to be contridicted in the following section, “There is no fundamental difference between government and corporations.” > [@](#): > > A good chunk of what libertarians and conservatives have to sell is the idea that government is wasteful and value-destroying, whereas corporations are frugal and value-adding. But this notion is certainly contrary to my own observation: I’ve worked for several major, respected companies in the US and Japan and have seen waste, inefficiency, and just general assbackwardsness that would make the Italian Post Office blush. The fact of the matter is that both the government and corporations–any organization, for that matter–is prone to waste and inefficiency. Here, the main point seems to be that corporations are as inefficent as government. You would agree that corporations tend not to have as much control as governments, if only due to the difference in scale, yes? Then, why are we not seeing the correlation mentioned earlier? Is there some distinction between stupid control and waste/inefficiency/assbackwardsness that I’m not seeing? If excess control does not lead to stupid control, what is the point of allowing coporations to exist? From you account, they appear to be inferior to governmental solutions (less democratic, can hide inefficiency behind profits). Perhaps you could explain why you believe that the regulation level in most industries should remain approximately what it is today. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/22 "2005-06-28T06:14:44Z")
Good questions, sir. > [@Dr. Love](#): > > **Aeschines** , what purpose do corporations (private business? Are you making a distinction between corporations and other forms of private business) play in the PDS system? I think the market mechanism for providing goods and services is the best most of the time. Corporations would continue to play the role that they do now. I semi- or fully nationalize certain sectors, such as health care and the airlines. > [@](#): > > That lead me to believe that you see some sort of correlation between more control and “stupid, counterproductive control”. One main principle of this line of thought is that there should be less control and burdening of the individual and greater control and burdening of the organization. Forcing every American to fill out a 1040 turns most Americans into A) incompetent accountants or B) people who pay for competent service. This is big, dumb stupid control. The war on drugs is also. Our immigration policy is monumentally over-controlled and misguided. So, first generalization: Greater control of the individual is usually bad control. People should basically be able to run their lives, obey some general moral principles (don’t kill, steal, etc.), and forget about the government. As far as control of organizations goes (for-profits, not-for-profits, etc.), less is better, but sufficient control should be exerted where it is needed. > [@](#): > > Here, the main point seems to be that corporations are as inefficent as government. I wouldn’t call that the main point, just a very important point. The main point is that companies exert control over their employees just like a government governing its citizens. Many verge on totalitarian. [quote] You would agree that corporations tend not to have as much control as governments, if only due to the difference in scale, yes? [quote] They are lower on the power hierarchy. But they probably exert on average much more control over their employees than governments do over individuals. The government doesn’t tell me how much vacation I may take or whether I must wear a tie. > [@](#): > > Then, why are we not seeing the correlation mentioned earlier? Is there some distinction between stupid control and waste/inefficiency/assbackwardsness that I’m not seeing? If excess control does not lead to stupid control, what is the point of allowing coporations to exist? I think I’m losing the train of thought here. If I were to separate out the principles: 1. The market economy is basically a good thing. 2. Control should be applied to organizations and not individual persons whenever possible; this is more efficient. 3. Further, control always imposes a cost on the economy and a psychological burden without necessarily guaranteeing a value-add. Hence, ceteris paribus, the less control the better. At the same time, however, all necessarily controls (necessary for human health, environmental protection, economic stability, etc. etc.) should be imposed, and many controls _that add value above their economic and psychological cost_ should also be imposed (I say “many” because controls also have a cumulative affect and interrelate. I personally would prefer freedom with a small loss than control with only a small gain.) 4. Corporations are, in essence, small (or even large) governments that control assets and persons. 5. Both governements and corporations have the potential for extreme waste and inefficiency. Simply because corporations are subject to market forces does not justify the waste they generate. 6. Additional point: Corporations should not be able to control every aspect of a person’s life simply because they exchange money for labor. > [@](#): > > From you account, they appear to be inferior to governmental solutions (less democratic, can hide inefficiency behind profits). Perhaps you could explain why you believe that the regulation level in most industries should remain approximately what it is today. Basically because of point #1: The market economy is a good thing. It’s not an invention, it’s really the default system that has worked well in history. But we can’t be like the libertarians and define the good as whatever the market produces. For example, I think the airlines should be put out of their misery and nationalized with the most efficient and beneficial network of routes being worked out and an appropriate but stringent security and maintenance system devised. A good, decent but no-frills package should be provided: Spotlessly clean planes, decent-sized seats, a sufficient number of friendly, polite attendants, and a brown bag (but high-quality and healthful) meal service. No marketing, no fancy plane livery, no Baroque restrictions on how and when you must purchase your fare. Fares would be based on actual demand for travel between destinations and would not be designed to pump demand or otherwise influence behavior. That is, if a route reaches natural capacity, fares would be raised so that demand equals the natural capacity. Where there is no limit on natural capacity, fares would be devised to cover costs plus provide a little leeway. Our current system is a disaster. The hub system is not the most efficient overall system but is essentially the game theory result of competition. I could go on and on about quality and other categories in which the airlines aren’t getting the job done, but I won’t. This is merely an example of circumstances that practically cry out for central planning. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/23 "2005-06-28T07:13:30Z")
Ideas painted with the broadest possible brush, not so much because I cannot provide details, but to spare you an undeserved death by boredom. All political systems are hogwash. They are, like theology, attempts to impose rational order where rational order is impossible, nailing jello to wall, chasing butterflys with a hammer. Liberalism is silly, communism laughable, and fascism dark with horror. The only people I can trust with power are precisely those most reluctant to seek it, but it is absurd to trust an ideology. I have known people to advance the notion - in complete seriousness! - that Stalin was preferable to Hitler because his _ideology_ was superior. I gape at such people with stunned regret. Evolve the people, and the people will evolve the system. A generous, educated and willingly involved people can operate ideally regardless of “system”. An unfettered capitalism that would cause Ayn Rand triple orgasms could operate as the framework of a just and healthy society, if that is the consensus of the people. Equally, a Marxist system. All such systems are perfectly innocent until they become the means to power. And all are equally corrupt once that happens. The ambitious _apparatchik_ commissar is not noticeably different from a grasping, hustling entrepeneur. As Mark Twain remarked: A man will do many things to be loved, he will do anything to be envied. Hence, the “pragmatic” approach: the radical approach, is to experiment and seek new means of human interaction. cooperation and liberation. The “worker ownership” notion I’ve already suggested here, just for an instance. We try it, keep what works, chuck the rest, replace as necessary; as a species, we are marvelously inventive, there’s always something else to try. It is important to change our laws and our governance to more truly reflect such principles as economic justice, but it is not as important as our _wanting_ to do so. So long as we are committed to that _direction_, we can keep experimenting with schemes until we get it right. That this involves cultural and personal changes so profound that they might just as well be thought of as spiritual…this has not escaped my attention. But leave that be, your eyes have glazed over, your pulse is dropping. I am satisfied you are to some risk. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/24 "2005-06-28T08:27:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > In other words, our current socialism calls itself capitalism and oppresses the individual with tax forms, the war on drugs, and an oppressive corporate (= governmental) environment. True socialism will free the individual and place the burden of modern governance where it belongs: on society as a whole. I can’t say as I buy your argument. All you’re saying is that because the government has more laws dealing with the flow of money in society than it did 100 years ago, we are socialists, and thus must end the war on drugs… 😕 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/25 "2005-06-28T08:33:59Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Sounds right, but I need to learn more about negative utilitarianism. Who else but our favourite Karl? (Not Marx!) > [@Karl Popper (“The Open Society and its Enemies”](#): > > It adds to clarity in the field of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively, ie. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness. Similarly, it is helpful to formulate the task of scientific method as the elimination of false theories … rather than the attainment of established truths. [Utilitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is the general preference of the majority of democratic governments and political philosophers these days, though by no means ‘watertight’. Negative utilitarianism seeks to minimise _suffering_ since it is rather easier to detect when a human is in, say, immediate need of direct medical assistance (brought on by starvation, exposure, cancer or the like) than when a human isn’t as happy as they _could_ be. I consider that minimising the worst suffering (according to, say, a _medical_ metric) _universally_ is possible via taxation without unduly retarding that **progress** which allows future sufferers of currently untreatable conditions to find similar respite. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/26 "2005-06-28T10:59:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > By the time the Libertarians arrive at 4% of the vote, they will schism into at least two bitterly internecine rivalries. Bet me. You’re too late. They split in '96 between the Constitutionalists (Harry Browne) and the anti-statists. Meanwhile, do you have any bets on the Native Vespuccians? Surely, their population status of a mere 0.8% combined with their political impotency qualifies them as targets for a clever wit. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/27 "2005-06-28T14:37:05Z")
The practical in me sees that all institutions are capable of excess if allowed to run unchecked. Government bodies and corporations are different but both are capable of causing problems. So are individuals and non-business associations. All of these entities are also, of course, capable of contributing to the good of society. So what is needed is a balance of power between them so that they all have the opportunity to contribute while having a check on them when they go too far in the wrong direction. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/28 "2005-06-28T15:00:46Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …qualifies them as targets for a clever wit. I look forward to your trenchant observations. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/29 "2005-06-28T15:41:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > It is important to change our laws and our governance to more truly reflect such principles as economic justice, but it is not as important as our _wanting_ to do so. So long as we are committed to that _direction_, we can keep experimenting with schemes until we get it right. It sounds to me like your political philosophy is based on the idea of economic justice. But what exactly is economic justice-- ie, how do we know when we’ve gotten it right? How do we even know that economic justice is or should be the goal? Is that not just as inherently arbitrary, as you seem to be saying, as declaring that freedom is the goal of governance? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/30 "2005-06-28T15:56:06Z")
An excellent question, John. Suppose you give Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones equal amounts of money. Mr. Smith invests his and doubles it, while Mr. Jones squanders his on gambling. Is it then economic justice to give Mr. Smith’s earnings to Mr. Jones? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/31 "2005-06-28T16:45:37Z")
**John** : I don’t know perzackly, but I imagine it will be dependent on a generalized consensus. I don’t seek to project definitions onto the future. This is precisely that failure of political sciences in general, they end up trying to slam the square peg of current cirucmstances into the round hole of predetermined goals. Today’s doctrinaire Marxist is hard pressed to find an industrial proletariat, never mind finding a revolutionary cadre to lead them. I _expect_ us to screw up, and then try again. There probably is no end point, no goal, process is all, but a process governed by a commonly held determination to strive for justice and equality. The process changes the circumstances, the circumstances alter the process. **Lib** : Depends, doesn’t it? Did person A achieve his investment success by investing in Joe Camel’s Cyanide Snacks for Kiddies? Did person B have a reasonable expectation of success for his gambling venture, was he playing table stakes hold 'em with a band of Carmelite nuns? Your question appears more akin to a gross oversimplification posited for the sake of ridicule. Knowing that you would never stoop to such, I am content that your unfortunate construction is the result of some time constraint, the press of urgent business, that sort of thing. But to give an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified question: I don’t know. Perhaps person A will be content if person B is pressed to attend therapy for his gambling addiction. Perhaps B will have his forehead tattooed with a red “D” for dumfuk, and be cast naked into the streets to wander forlorn and scorned. Perhaps A will gather a militia of the like-minded, and lead a Galtist revolution from the desert. Is my answer silly? Well, yes. So’s your question. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/32 "2005-06-28T18:26:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **John** : I don’t know perzackly, but I imagine it will be dependent on a generalized consensus. I don’t seek to project definitions onto the future. This is precisely that failure of political sciences in general, they end up trying to slam the square peg of current cirucmstances into the round hole of predetermined goals. Today’s doctrinaire Marxist is hard pressed to find an industrial proletariat, never mind finding a revolutionary cadre to lead them. > > I _expect_ us to screw up, and then try again. There probably is no end point, no goal, process is all, but a process governed by a commonly held determination to strive for justice and equality. The process changes the circumstances, the circumstances alter the process. I appreciate the straightforward answer. I know you often think I’m laying a trap for you so that I can spring it and say “Aha! I knew you were a commie”. But I’m not. The only way I can understand a person’s position is to ask questions. You often make very sweeping statements that are, frankly, hard to understand. I also think this board would be much better served if posters spent more times asking questions, and less time advocating positions. Anyway, I’m still pretty confused as to what exactly you’re advocating, but perhaps we’ll have to wait until you open a thread dedicated you expounding on your political philosphy. 🙂 At least I now have some sense of where you’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/33 "2005-06-28T18:55:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Lib** : Depends, doesn’t it? Did person A achieve his investment success by investing in Joe Camel’s Cyanide Snacks for Kiddies? Did person B have a reasonable expectation of success for his gambling venture, was he playing table stakes hold 'em with a band of Carmelite nuns? > > Your question appears more akin to a gross oversimplification posited for the sake of ridicule. Knowing that you would never stoop to such, I am content that your unfortunate construction is the result of some time constraint, the press of urgent business, that sort of thing. > > But to give an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified question: I don’t know. Perhaps person A will be content if person B is pressed to attend therapy for his gambling addiction. Perhaps B will have his forehead tattooed with a red “D” for dumfuk, and be cast naked into the streets to wander forlorn and scorned. Perhaps A will gather a militia of the like-minded, and lead a Galtist revolution from the desert. > > Is my answer silly? Well, yes. So’s your question. Funnily enough, I don’t remember that sort of reaction from you when I fielded questions about Giant Squids and Mean Old Men Who Own All The Water On Earth. But if you think it is silly that one man might invest his money wisely while another might squander his money, then I don’t know what you and I might possibly talk about. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/34 "2005-06-28T18:59:30Z")
I’m unlikely to do so, **Big John** , my brand of political agnosticism doesn’t lend itself to exposition. Asked "OK, smartass, then what’s _your_ plan " I have to admit, even confirm, that I haven’t one. Indeed, that’s almost it in a nutshell: the will to strive for justice, to progress, is crucial, fundamental. Plans and political philosophies are irrelevent. Change the people, and the people will change the system, when the people lead, the leaders will follow. I have pretty much always been a radical. Tom Paine is my main man, above Tom Jefferson, and that little bitch Al Hamilton, well…the less said, the better. Over the course of the long, strange trip that’s been, I’ve turned against the notion of tearing down The System and starting over. Sudden, extreme change offers too much opportunity for heartless and ambitious men. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler…revolutionaries, each and every one and blood stained monsters to a man. It isn’t the System that needs changing, it’s us, we, the people. If the American governance was comprised of enthusiastic progressives on the left and cautious, prudent progressives on the right, the Shining City may well be within our grasp, or our grandchildren’s. But so long as we foster a culture of competition for loud, shiny crap, we will get what we deserve, barring the divine intervention of the Goddess. (Do I kiss up to feminists? You bet I do, said I was radical, didn’t say stupid!) Friend **Aeschines** , in his youthful enthusiasm, has a Plan. Perhaps your critiques are better directed there? I have already hogged far too much of your generous attention. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/35 "2005-06-28T19:04:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …then I don’t know what you and I might possibly talk about. I am, or course, bereft. I only hope that somehow, some day, I will find the strength to go on… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/36 "2005-06-28T19:16:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m unlikely to do so, **Big John** , my brand of political agnosticism doesn’t lend itself to exposition. The Tao which can be spoken is not the eternal Tao… Of course I don’t expect you to-- hence the smilie in that post. > [@](#): > > It isn’t the System that needs changing, it’s us, we, the people. If the American governance was comprised of enthusiastic progressives on the left and cautious, prudent progressives on the right, the Shining City may well be within our grasp, or our grandchildren’s. But so long as we foster a culture of competition for loud, shiny crap, we will get what we deserve, barring the divine intervention of the Goddess. must… refrain…from…requesting…defintion…of…“progressive”… > [@](#): > > Friend **Aeschines** , in his youthful enthusiasm, has a Plan. Perhaps your critiques are better directed there? I have already hogged far too much of your generous attention. Ah, but it’s no trouble at all, as I am very generous by nature. Just ask my friends. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/37 "2005-06-28T19:55:15Z")
Are they both available by e-mail? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/38 "2005-06-29T00:27:29Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Negative utilitarianism seeks to minimise _suffering_ since it is rather easier to detect when a human is in, say, immediate need of direct medical assistance (brought on by starvation, exposure, cancer or the like) than when a human isn’t as happy as they _could_ be. I consider that minimising the worst suffering (according to, say, a _medical_ metric) _universally_ is possible via taxation without unduly retarding that **progress** which allows future sufferers of currently untreatable conditions to find similar respite. Fascinating and enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/39 "2005-06-29T10:57:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am, or course, bereft. I only hope that somehow, some day, I will find the strength to go on… …but not the strength to answer the question, I reckon. Would or would not giving Mr. Smith’s income to Mr. Jones in my example constitute what you are calling economic justice? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898/40 "2005-06-29T12:32:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > …but not the strength to answer the question, I reckon. Would or would not giving Mr. Smith’s income to Mr. Jones in my example constitute what you are calling economic justice? If Mr. Smith got a colossal income by manipulating the political system to squeeze money from a lot of Mr. Joneses who only have small or modest incomes, it is certainly reasonable to expect Mr. Smith to give at least some of it back, yes. If Mr. Smith and his small circle of friends own 80% of the wealth, it might be an excellent idea to place some severe restrictions on their wealth and power lest they abuse it. You don’t have to be some kind of ranting, cockeyed radical to believe that extreme imbalances of wealth will create serious problems and perhaps even destroy society altogether. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-political-philosophy-practical-democratic-socialism/309898.md?page=3)