6 ms·

Only in the "No True Scotsman" definition of Socialism. Because making everyone else to do what you want (eg. give something that they have to someone who you

by _yid9 5y ago

Only in the "No True Scotsman" definition of Socialism. Because making everyone else to do what you want (eg. give something that they have to someone who you deem deserves it more) will always require force. So, decide right now: how much force are you willing to apply? The answer will have to be sufficient force to ensure they yield: lethal force.

DFHippie 5y ago
The problem with this interminable argument about government and force is that it implicitly involves unreasonable people. What allows the government to collect taxes? Lethal force! But also... What keeps people from driving on the wrong side of the road? Lethal force! What keeps people from dining and dashing? Lethal force! What keeps from using park benches as toilets? Lethal force! For the most part people are reasonable and if you indicate that they need to do something or refrain from doing something, they go along. If they don't, you can write a law with some enforcement mechanism, and then they go along. If they still don't, you can increase the bite of the enforcement mechanism. Rarely do you have Bartleby the Scrivener types who simply refuse to cooperate, and even then, the consequence for them, like for Bartleby, is generally fines or time in state custody, not lethal force. The government, through its agents, often does employ lethal force with tragic consequences, but this is usually the result of the agents enforcing their own special laws -- respect my authority or I will kill you -- not the actual laws and their legal enforcement mechanisms. Many nations have no death penalty. Many have police officers who vary rarely kill their citizens. These nations are often very nice countries to live in.
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
Or use subtle force, like it is done today in capitalism. You just need to leave people with no choices. Pay the rent, or you and your family end up on the streets. Pay your insurance, or you will be left to bleed out and die. You have no other choice but to take any job, no matter how bad it may be. Then foster a culture that gives everyone the hope that they also have a chance to get a good life, but only on the condition that they must only think for themselves and compete with the other poor to ascend the social pyramid. That's meritocracy. This is how the rich (the capitalist ruling class) gets everyone else to do what they want, which is to trickle up enormous amounts of value from everyone to a handful of people. Then if we want to talk about lethal force, capitalists used overwhelming amounts of it troughout recent history, in order to preserve the status quo that advantages them. It's not a secret and it just takes some honest study to know it.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
How is this different than getting everyone to adhere to capitalism or democracy? Lots of people die under this system, doing things they do not want to do.
- _yid9 5y ago
  Good question! As with most choices, the level of force required to achieve compliance is more or less linearly related to the harshness of the choice. Pay a small amount of taxes? Little force required. Give full authority over your life to a faceless central planner? Great force required. Give full authority, with no chance of escape? Lethal force required. I'm not sure why this is a concept that seems to be a mystery to advocates of "Socialism", though. "Socialism would work great, if only you pesky rich, free people would just give up and let the state take everything and let your children starve!" :)
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I'm not a strong proponent of socialism, but this seems like an outrageously loaded response to a genuine question.
    - _yid9 5y ago
      It was a genuine answer. Is force not linearly related to the gravity / undesirability of the mandate? Are increasingly draconian mandates not rebuffed by more and more people? Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair share"? If people are allowed to leave such systems for ones more to their liking, do they not flee, unless forced not to? If those who don't "give their fair share" try to leave and are forced to stay, and staying means that they or their children may die, will they not fight to the death to escape?
      - micromacrofoot 5y ago
        >Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair share"? You mean like if you don't pay taxes you go to jail? or if you don't work you live on the street? There are certainly harsher places to be, but the US is not friendly to people who do not "give their fair share." It's already mandatory.

by _yid9 5y ago

DFHippie 5y ago

The problem with this interminable argument about government and force is that it implicitly involves unreasonable people. What allows the government to collect taxes? Lethal force! But also... What keeps people from driving on the wrong side of the road? Lethal force! What keeps people from dining and dashing? Lethal force! What keeps from using park benches as toilets? Lethal force! For the most part people are reasonable and if you indicate that they need to do something or refrain from doing something, they go along. If they don't, you can write a law with some enforcement mechanism, and then they go along. If they still don't, you can increase the bite of the enforcement mechanism. Rarely do you have Bartleby the Scrivener types who simply refuse to cooperate, and even then, the consequence for them, like for Bartleby, is generally fines or time in state custody, not lethal force. The government, through its agents, often does employ lethal force with tragic consequences, but this is usually the result of the agents enforcing their own special laws -- respect my authority or I will kill you -- not the actual laws and their legal enforcement mechanisms. Many nations have no death penalty. Many have police officers who vary rarely kill their citizens. These nations are often very nice countries to live in.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago

Or use subtle force, like it is done today in capitalism. You just need to leave people with no choices. Pay the rent, or you and your family end up on the streets. Pay your insurance, or you will be left to bleed out and die. You have no other choice but to take any job, no matter how bad it may be. Then foster a culture that gives everyone the hope that they also have a chance to get a good life, but only on the condition that they must only think for themselves and compete with the other poor to ascend the social pyramid. That's meritocracy. This is how the rich (the capitalist ruling class) gets everyone else to do what they want, which is to trickle up enormous amounts of value from everyone to a handful of people. Then if we want to talk about lethal force, capitalists used overwhelming amounts of it troughout recent history, in order to preserve the status quo that advantages them. It's not a secret and it just takes some honest study to know it.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

How is this different than getting everyone to adhere to capitalism or democracy? Lots of people die under this system, doing things they do not want to do.

_yid9 5y ago
Good question! As with most choices, the level of force required to achieve compliance is more or less linearly related to the harshness of the choice. Pay a small amount of taxes? Little force required. Give full authority over your life to a faceless central planner? Great force required. Give full authority, with no chance of escape? Lethal force required. I'm not sure why this is a concept that seems to be a mystery to advocates of "Socialism", though. "Socialism would work great, if only you pesky rich, free people would just give up and let the state take everything and let your children starve!" :)
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I'm not a strong proponent of socialism, but this seems like an outrageously loaded response to a genuine question.
  - _yid9 5y ago
    It was a genuine answer. Is force not linearly related to the gravity / undesirability of the mandate? Are increasingly draconian mandates not rebuffed by more and more people? Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair share"? If people are allowed to leave such systems for ones more to their liking, do they not flee, unless forced not to? If those who don't "give their fair share" try to leave and are forced to stay, and staying means that they or their children may die, will they not fight to the death to escape?
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      >Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair share"? You mean like if you don't pay taxes you go to jail? or if you don't work you live on the street? There are certainly harsher places to be, but the US is not friendly to people who do not "give their fair share." It's already mandatory.