It seems there is no widely agreed definition of socialism. Have a look here for a few different definitions from various websites. Most of them seem to say that its either government control of all means of production (in which case socialism would seem to be another word for communism) or that its when government controls major/key/principle industries, with private enterprise supplying the rest.
Even given the “softer” definition, i don’t think any european countries would be defined as socialist as major industries are in private hands. While EU countries have an extensive “safety net” this just represents a redistribution of wealth - the government doesn’t actually supply any goods or services at all.
This is the best definition so far. It does not say that governments cannot have assets or spend money, it simply says that private individuals own property. Notice that this can be accepted by degrees in different societies. So you might have Britons who own their own houses, but who believe that most doctors should work for the state.
I think you are confusing government activities with the revenue sources. I might agree with you that confiscation of funds is socialist, I think that police forces are not. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. I’m sure you are aware of the possibility of paying for government activities with fees on contract enforcement. It would constitiute a revenue stream which could be made voluntary and whihc might pay for police functions. There are other fee for service ideas which are not the same as recieving a bill each time a burglar is caught.
Wow, I knew that we weren’t a totaly capitalistic society, but I didn’t realize…Oh hell, I’ll just make this short and say that you’ve raised some interesting points and given me some good information, thanks.
Isn’t it more accurate to state that the rich increase their wealth at a faster rate than the poor do? Overall, everyone becomes more wealthy as increased competition means prices of things like cars and TV’s reduce. Sure, the gap between rich and poor increases, but on an absolute scale, the poor are improving their lot - just more slowly.
Apologies in advance if this comes across as a ‘drive-by nitpick’ - I don’t get the chance to check the boards that often.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by laigle *
** Interfere too little, and you wind up with 12 year olds working 20 hour shifts in unsafe factories that poison your water supply. **
[/QUOTE]
Or to be more germane – Interfere too little and you wind up with people working full time jobs while living in their cars because they can’t afford a place to live, and going to the emergency room for all their illnesses because they have no money for medical treatment (they can’t even put a roof over their heads) and no insurance. Or interfere too little and you get continued unemployment during a time of general economic good times for businesses as employers work their employees relentlessly and move what jobs they can to cheap foreign labor.
Even Adam Smith, who first formulated a concept of what capitalism meant, didn’t think that taxation to support the equitable enforcement of laws and contracts, was something outside of capitalism.
The purpose of socialism is to redistribute wealth. The purpose of taxing people to fund a government is not, as long as that taxation is truly equitable (i.e., everyone pays the same, or at least pay a user fee related to what they actually use). However, as was pointed out, this is a side issue to whether simply having a police force is inherently socialist. It is not. It isn’t socialist for the government to operate or enforce laws. It’s socialist for it do so as a means of trying to redistribute income.
I think this is also a cultural effect. I’ve always gotten the impression that on the whole Americans resent limitations on individual economic freedoms than most Europeans do.
And? Who is to say that socialism and capitalism are inherently and utterly opposite to each other except for demagogues and ideologues? Capitalism is primarily about who controls the means of production and only secondarily about what is done with all the fruits of production.
Any service provided by the state, financed by non-voluntary means, is socialist. A capitalist army is a private army. A capitalist police force is a gang of personal thugs.
Dogface we could speculate about “PURE” capitalism… but its like your advocating the total absence of government. That is the ideas anarchists expouse… that governement can be unecessary.
Capitalism has always grown around having government ... govt. that provides the security and stability necessary for capital to prosper.
<swarthy accent>“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” </swarthy accent>
Control of the “means of production” is a marxist phrase full of meanings which are not correctly attributable to capitalism. Capitalism is an economic/political system based on the primacy of private ownership of property. If this property is a factory (means of production) or a private home is not as important as the question of who has ownership of that property. “Means of production” implys that economic activity is some sort of natural resource like gold or farm land. Capitalism recognizes that economic activity happens when private individuals engage in trade voluntary with one another. Production is not so much a resource which can be owned by one group or another as it is an activity which only works when engaged in by volunteers. That is, the “means of production” are not the factories they are the free choices of individual owners of property.
In your second paragraph your first sentence seems to go ok. But the last 2 don’t seem to follow. As I said before financing governments by involuntary means is “uncapitalistic”. However this does not preclude the possibility of financing governments. If we extend the concept of usage fees to as many governement functions as possible, we might be able to arrive at a revenue stream which is both voluntary and sufficient to fund the needed government branches. I mentioned before the contract enforcement idea. If I may expound for a moment. This is the idea that enforcement of contracts can be considered a government service. It could be argued that every use of a credit card, and almost every purchase made is a contract. If the government simply collected a small percentage of each contract for enforcing that contract a signifigant revenue stream would be created. You make it voluntary simply by not requiring anyone to have their contracts enforced. That is, if you don’t want to pay the fee, then you don’t have to. But in that case the contract in question is not enforceable in court.
I’m not proposing the idea and it was not my invention. But it is an example of a voluntary revenue stream.