The socialist mindset

I just thought users here might like to see how the commies justify their system, in order to gain a better appreciation of it when arguing against them. Here is a link to a thread from another forum, a rather hopelessly collectivist one.

Gosh it's humid in there. About half of what I read didn't seem to be pertinent to the OP at all.

I wonder if the proverbial would hit the fan if I quoted Paul Craig Roberts.



Nah, I'm sure they wouldn't ban m-

***THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE MINISTRY OF GOOD INTENTIONS*** 

 Simple.

They believe it is moral to forcefully take from another person.

Call it what you want. Honestly, there is nothing else in their so-called "theory". 

Everything else they say falls apart immediately, as soon as you propose that non-socialists should be able to escape the system.

This is why to keep the socialism, you must have constant conquest till there is no escape.

A capitalist, in contrast, can easily allow socialists to escape or to organize in socialistic villages. As long as their socialism is by free will, it doesn't even take hold.

Always test for the free will.

BTW, you can't base your thoughts on an American example, because it is a socialist country. Try to opt out of SSI.

You don't need to show the price undetermination reason for socialism collapse following Mises' prediction. That simply shows that even forgetting the free will prohibition, it still is going to collapse. 

Thorgold2:

Everything else they say falls apart immediately, as soon as you propose that non-socialists should be able to escape the system.

This is why to keep the socialism, you must have constant conquest till there is no escape.

 

How well I know. An old socialist friend and I debated socialism for three years, off and on. It took me two and a half years just to bother getting around to doing research, but as her arguments began to falter, she fell back on the tried and true two: capitalism was nice, but now we need socialism; and "socialism won't work properly until the entire world is socialist." By working properly, I think she meant that magical utopia nonsense that you see in Soviet propaganda posters. 

Ours were lively debates. She was a lawyer, and arguing with her really gave me a rich perspective on the law; and it sure honed my still-weak rhetoric. 

But then she said that the Branch Davidians represented a threat to national security, I called her a totalitarian *** and we haven't spoken since. 

RiflesReady:

she fell back on the tried and true two: capitalism was nice, but now we need socialism; and "socialism won't work properly until the entire world is socialist."

 

...this argument sounds familiar

Well that isn't quite why I linked the thread. Their arguments (even if wrong) are rather nuanced. I'd recommend taking them seriously into consideration.

RiflesReady:

But then she said that the Branch Davidians represented a threat to national security,

Really?  Crazy!

 

Inquisitor:

Well that isn't quite why I linked the thread. Their arguments (even if wrong) are rather nuanced. I'd recommend taking them seriously into consideration.

Indeed, I intend on trying to read some of their arguments sometime this weekend while @ work.  I'd feel a bit of a hyprocrite, as well as uninformed, if I didn't give some of the good posts there a chance.

I think it would be an interesting experiment if, in fact, some type of specific forum was created for the sole purpose of libertarians & socialists to debate differences. 

Although, the potential for rampant flame wars is massive.

Well Per Bylund's anarchist site and other sites like anti-state serve that function, but it's pretty much just as you said. Leftists tend not to be very closed-minded. 

Do think that people with specific views are more/less open-minded than people with other specific views? I haven't found any difference in open-mindedness between libertarians, leftists, or rightists. I've always found it silly when leftists claim to be open-minded.

 Depends. I'd say the moral relativist is a lot more open minded than I am. But if you are talking about political views, well. I struggle every day to keep myself from slipping into the skin of an unquestioning partisan. 

Could you explain what you mean by that? I don't believe in any "objective" or "universal" rights, but I don't consider myself a moral relativist.

How could the holding of a particular view make one more open minded? 

thecapitalist:

Do think that people with specific views are more/less open-minded than people with other specific views? I haven't found any difference in open-mindedness between libertarians, leftists, or rightists. I've always found it silly when leftists claim to be open-minded.

 

"Open mindedness" is a myth. If a person didn't think that what they believed was true, they wouldn't believe it. Even a person who believes completely in subjective truth will hiss and spit at the idea of objective truth; yet they beleve that the notion of subjective truth is objectively true. A person who calls himself "open minded" is in denial.

I sure as hell make no such claim. I am a libertarian because I am quite sure that libertarian ethics, morality and reason is the truth. 

I think open-mindedness, in the definition of being receptive to new ideas or information, should be more correctly called the capacity of tolerance of new ideas or information, mainly because I think the whole concept of a person accepting new ideas and/or information would rely on

1.) the tolerance for ideas which they do not understand immediately, did not think of before, or do not agree with at all
&
2.) their ability to frame or assimilate it within their current schema.

I would think someone lacking the ability of tolerance could be called close-minded; but the concept of a complete open-minded individual without bias (the lack of which would allow reception of new ideas & information for fully) is a pretty big myth.  

I learned from first hand experience whenever I participated in the weekly discussions in one of my history classes (I more or less implied the study of history is pointless if all we study is the white-washed output of the victors of history itself; I don't think many appreciated that remark too much...)

I actually think that some individuals, let's say some that are leftist, mean well when they say open-minded, but fall horribly of the misconception of one being fully open minded to news ideas & information, when they really mean, "more open minded compared to other individuals, such as perhaps some Rightists."  I think the concept itself is too perfectionist to be attainable.

I might be poking at a box I don't fully understand, but that's how I've usually viewed it.