What does socialism mean to you?

All voluntary contracts are a surrender of that person's freedom. Joe agrees to trade his widget for John's gizmo. After this trade, Joe no longer has the freedom to posses the widget he traded away.

My point is that no third party should force anyone to surrender her freedom against her will.

 

Which third party are you refering to?

Life is a long series of trade-offs: you do not commit crime/you don't go to jail; you pay your grocer/you receive groceries...
Every day you surrender some part of your freedom for being a member of the society.

Back to socialism: more socialism indeed means more surrender of individual freedom, against more public services and/or higher protection against adversity. But considering that socialism and capitalism exclude each other is a simplistic and rather childish view.

 

QUOTE="Adfundum, post: 1070340985, member: 78668"]You should think about what the concept of freedom implies. Should you be free to practice target shooting on a school playground?[/QUOTE]

I already addressed this previously with @Longshot :

[

 

It is business run by government rather than by the public. I see it that way because it is the generally accepted definition.

You are confusing socialism (economics) with government social spending (politics). Government social spending is acceptable in my view at the state level but not the federal level. If a state makes society untenable by excessive social spending, one can go to another state. Obviously not the case at the federal level.

Of course not, as long as the individualism doesn't affect the freedom of others.

The common good of course. It should always be the goal of government. Economically capitalism serves the common good better than any other system. Socialism has a perfect record of destroying national economies. The answer to your question is both. Obviously you don't understand economics well if you separate the two.

 

I think it's important to distinguish between freedom and liberty. Liberty is akin to freedom, but is restrained by the rights of others.

Jefferson: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

 

I don't think you're being anal. You're simply being precise in your use of language, which is a good thing. Imprecise and metaphorical language can be used to support unjust social policies, IMO.

 

A person is still responsible for his/her direct actions, no matter the intent.

 

One only surrenders right by explicit consent freely entered into by all parties involved, like a contract.

 

Equity by force of law = socialism = compelled-equity

 

All of them at the federal level. If you put social spending at the state level, control is closer to the voters and states have to compete with one another. It allows citizens to move to another state if they don't like what a state is doing with social programs. If you look at a dictionary, you will see that my definition is the standard one. It is not an extreme definition. The problem is that you folks call government social spending socialism and it is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system, not a political one.

 

You are using a political description for an economic system.

 

1) My expectation is the same as for all who aren't billionaires. It's incredibly expensive to obtain a university degree, and takes a sizeable chunk out of your potential income earning time .. therefore it MUST pay well, immediately, and without difficulty. I cannot afford to risk that much time and money on something that has only a 'chance' of securing me well paid and secure employment. Once again .. I'm only referring to non-billionaires. Billionaires can and should study as much 17thC French Poetry as their hearts desire.

2) I would ask why you selected Advertising as an example industry. It's tiny industry, is very unstable, and requires no university education at all in 99% of its roles. And what's with the tangential approach? Or are you saying that those tangential courses won't get you jobs in the field, so you have to work in advertising? If so, the Bill Murray was right in Groundhog Day "you studied 17thC French Poetry? .. haha .. what a waste of time".

3) I don't want to LIMIT what is or can be. I'm saying that for anyone independently wealthy (and therefore has no need to secure immediate well paid work after graduating), the Arts/Humanities/Liberal Arts should be avoided like the plague. The rich can do whatever they want, obviously. They don't have to worry about paying bills or repaying student loans.

 

I guess my position is a reverse elitism, sure. But it's founded on the absolute necessity- for anyone not rich - to approach college as an investment. If it doesn't pay, it's just not worth it. You wouldn't spend $50k and 3 years (or in the case of one of my kids - $130k and 6 years) on shares which were very unlikely to even retain their original value, much less pay you a profit. You'd have to be insane to do that, in fact.

 

There is no socialism apart from the force of law. Socialism has a compulsory nature. There is no such thing as voluntary-socialism. Charity, on the other hand, has a mutually voluntary nature.

 

The army was my socialist utopia...

 

Socialism cannot be forced. It's literally impossible. Only those who volunteer, will ever be willing to do what's actually involved (non stop hard work, usually in something you're not particularly keen on).

What you're talking about is redistribution of capitalist profits. Totally different, and does not require any kind of Socialism to work. In fact it requires an Aristocrat/Serf arrangement, with the Serfs being those who fund the easy life of the Aristocrats (those who don't want to work).

 

voluntary-socialism? Well have at you. Let me know how that works out for you.

What you're describing is called Epicureanism. It's been tried; however, Epicurus did not promise prosperity. He promised austerity. Almost all medieval Christian monasteries were originally built as Epicurean communes. Christianity took off like wildfire among the Epicureans. You should look into Epicureanism; it seems as if you're just about there.

 

"The difference between libertarians and socialists is that libertarians would allow socialists to live as socialists if that’s what they wanted." - Unattested. I can't claim credit for it.