In Defense of Equality ; an argument for democratic socialism

2016-03-26 20:03:22

#1

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +641|3957

I spent a few weeks looking for a complete copy of an article by the political scientist Michael Walzer. The article is very good and was included in the Princeton Readings in Political Thought anthology along with Plato, Nietzsche, Marx, Mill, Hegel, and others. It was chosen because it manages to lay out a convincing argument for democratic socialism in 10 pages.

The article was written for a socialist magazine in 1973. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall on their site. Anyway, this copy is missing a few pages and ends abruptly but the meat of the argument is still there. Anyone want to read it and talk it over?
~

I think most reasonable people will see merit in Walzer's argument regarding the distribution of life necessities. Unfortunately, the only experience people will have with the idea of democratic socialism is Sanders paranoid ramblings about Wall Street CEOs. The part about the differences in human talent is my favorite.

+5 if someone could find the whole article.

2016-03-26 23:06:46

#2

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7009|PNW

If you know who wrote it, just look up bibliography? Maybe poke around communitarianism.

2016-03-27 03:30:33

#3

uziq: Member; +495|3690

after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.

2016-03-27 05:11:49

#4

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

American academic political theory has caught up with the 1860s?

Slow down guys, stop for a breather now.

Fuck Israel

2016-03-27 05:36:21

#5

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.

Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-27 06:12:58

#6

uziq: Member; +495|3690

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.
Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.

national debt does not work like household debt. welcome to macroeconomics 101.

2016-03-27 06:20:11

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.
Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.

You're right, a country should borrow to burn up cash in the military which has no productive output, not the health service.

Fuck Israel

2016-03-27 06:39:52

#8

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.
Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.
national debt does not work like household debt. welcome to macroeconomics 101.

No? Because you can default or devalue? Wipe out all the pensions and 401k's? It does work like household debt. Eventually the interest payments will become untenable. We have ever increasing percentages of our national income that has to be set aside to service this interest. Money that could instead be used to create growth.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-27 06:40:32

#9

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.
Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.
You're right, a country should borrow to burn up cash in the military which has no productive output, not the health service.

I'd rather see the money go towards health services if it has to be spent.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-27 16:53:29

#10

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6954

Jay wrote:
uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:

Judging by the collective national debts, all these national insurance programs are working out great. Take all individual risk, colectivize it and punt the premium payments. Completely rational and completely unsustainable.
national debt does not work like household debt. welcome to macroeconomics 101.
No? Because you can default or devalue? Wipe out all the pensions and 401k's? It does work like household debt. Eventually the interest payments will become untenable. We have ever increasing percentages of our national income that has to be set aside to service this interest. Money that could instead be used to create growth.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2016-03-27 17:21:28

#11

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +641|3957

uziq wrote:
after world war 2, pretty much every western democracy has accepted 'democratic socialism' in one form or another. we just don't talk about it anymore. it has become part of the furniture. there are certain assumptions about the state's role, the size of the state (everyone is pro-big government, even the republicans who want to get into power by saying they are anti-big government...), the citizen's basic relation to the state, etc. libertarian stances seem like an absurdity; no right thinking westerner would seriously look at a seeking small-government democracy like india's and honestly say they prefer it. democratic socialism is a fundamental a priori for our current system.

it should be noted that the small government democracies like India, Mexico, Brazil, and others in Asia are trying to move towards systems where there are more government services for poor and middle class citizens. Even right wing authoritarian groups advocate for assistance programs at the very least to promote social stability. The U.S. is one of the few places where the idea of less government assistance for everyone has widespread and maybe even majority support. It is probably the only advanced nation with this meme and it shows in many places in the U.S. like Flint where the drinking water could kill you.

2016-03-27 18:10:58

#12

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Create growth.

The "exponential growth forever" theory is as dumb as the "we'll grow our way out of debt" theory.
The first is often used to justify the second - it seems like only yesterday you were arguing this very thing.
3% Growth is regarded as small, do you think an economy which doubles in size every 25 years is realistic?

The American economy has flatlined for almost 20 years now, the WW2 dividend is thoroughly gone, people are going nuts to buy gadgets for $600 which cost $2 to make - and yet still there is no growth.

Fuck Israel

2016-03-27 18:28:04

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Create growth.
The "exponential growth forever" theory is as dumb as the "we'll grow our way out of debt" theory.
The first is often used to justify the second - it seems like only yesterday you were arguing this very thing.
3% Growth is regarded as small, do you think an economy which doubles in size every 25 years is realistic?

The American economy has flatlined for almost 20 years now, the WW2 dividend is thoroughly gone, people are going nuts to buy gadgets for $600 which cost $2 to make - and yet still there is no growth.

I don't agree with the Keynesian growth model. I think growth based on debt leads to wild booms and busts. Encouraging households to leverage themselves just to goose GDP figures is horrifically damaging. I believe that proper sustainable growth only comes when people are encouraged to save. It also has the pleasant side effect of keeping inflation down. Krugman, Draghi and the other idiots championing negative interest rates and the abolition of currency need to be put in front of a firing squad in my opinion.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-27 19:13:52

#14

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Pursuit of growth full stop leads to booms and busts as the growth rate returns to its natural sustainable level of say 0.2-0.5% and linked to population growth, yet this is viewed as 'near-recession' and a disaster.

Its nice to live through a period of growth, as the baby-boomers have done, its horrible when it comes to an end though as we're now seeing.

Anyone calling for or expecting growth greater than say 0.5% is a dangerous loon and should be put in front of a firing squad.

Fuck Israel

2016-03-28 03:01:26

#15

uziq: Member; +495|3690

we must create growth in a world with a finite number of resources and an infinitely expanding pool of people.

we must keep the inflation rate down and not worry what happens to liquidity and interest rates when people do not spend their money.

2016-03-28 04:29:01

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Pursuit of growth full stop leads to booms and busts as the growth rate returns to its natural sustainable level of say 0.2-0.5% and linked to population growth, yet this is viewed as 'near-recession' and a disaster.

Its nice to live through a period of growth, as the baby-boomers have done, its horrible when it comes to an end though as we're now seeing.

Anyone calling for or expecting growth greater than say 0.5% is a dangerous loon and should be put in front of a firing squad.

Perhaps when the entire world is developed in some distant future. No, growth is tied to population growth only in an isolated economy like North Korea.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-28 05:19:15

#17

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

The entire world is an isolated economy - this is what the "unlimited growth forever" crowd don't want to accept.

Endless growth means a shit life for everyone in the end.

Fuck Israel

2016-03-28 05:25:00

#18

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Malthusian arguments are so 1970s

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-28 05:34:54

#19

uziq: Member; +495|3690

critique of growth and acquisition is not malthusian. also malthus was 1870s.

marx and engels pointed out that capitalism relies on ever-expanding frontiers of growth (then linked to empire) that one day will be exhausted.

there is an endgame to the 'endless growth' model, this isn't that complicated. an economy isn't automatically 'healthy' because it is endlessly expanding and growing.

2016-03-28 05:56:31

#20

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Malthusian arguments are so 1970s

Its your argument, dur

growth is tied to population growth only in an isolated economy like North Korea

Fuck Israel

2016-03-28 06:27:51

#21

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +641|3957

People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.

2016-03-28 06:30:00

#22

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Malthusian arguments are so 1970s
Its your argument, dur
growth is tied to population growth only in an isolated economy like North Korea

Ok

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-28 06:34:30

#23

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.

There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-03-28 06:59:47

#24

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +641|3957

Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.

Expensive oil isn't just a pricing issue that will work itself out. More expensive oil and other resources results in conflicts for resources in and between countries. It will cause refugee crisis, terrorism, famines, wars, genocide and so fourth. There isn't a free market solution for any of that.

2016-03-28 07:09:49

#25

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
People in the developed world need to lower their consumption levels for the good of mankind. That has been an absolute taboo to say in politics ever since Carter lost to Reagan after suggesting Americans lower their gas consumption. Even the so called democratic socialist in the U.S. promise more free stuff instead of questioning if we really need that stuff. Does the middle class need more hangouts like Sanders promises? Probably not.
There's no limit to resources and no need to ration them. We've become more efficient over time, and that's a continuing trend. We're not running out of anything, it's just becoming more expensive to extract some things like oil. So, over time the price of oil will rise and we'll learn to use less of it. The sky is not falling and our consumerism is not killing the planet.
Expensive oil isn't just a pricing issue that will work itself out. More expensive oil and other resources results in conflicts for resources in and between countries. It will cause refugee crisis, terrorism, famines, wars, genocide and so fourth. There isn't a free market solution for any of that.

What are you talking about? We had 4 dollar gas two years ago and everyone launched electric cars. Electric cars aren't going to become popular at $2, and no, jacking up the gas tax isn't a realistic answer. Shit works itself out.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums In Defense of Equality ; an argument for democratic socialism

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Board footer