But it is in our nature to want to create things. Maximizing production, no, of course not. That is the company founder’s goal and the goal of the shareholders. To hell with the people who do the grunt work that they don’t even get to own the fruits of.

IMHO Capitalism only works for everyone when the workers have some say about their work. Like in Germany where the boards of companies must have laborer members on them.

If your objective is to maximize your income, then you have to choose an occupation that provides that. I don't advocate chasing money. It's a hollow existence and beyond sustenance and then a handful of luxuries, money offers little, certainly not fulfillment.

The reality is that some things have higher financial value than others, and we needn't pay a teacher what we pay a surgeon out of a since of fairness, especially in light of what I've said: financial rewards are not a declaration of human worth. If your passion is growing tomatoes, have at it, but you can't expect to sell them for the price of steak. You can't make the world want to buy your produce.

I think Wallows chart (on the first page) shows the truth quite well: those fields that actually have something to do with understanding how economies function have a negative view of socialism. Philosophy as a theoretical field looks at more of the ideological issues at stake, so no wonder that philosophers have typically been socialists (and believers in trendy totalitarian systems of the times).

IMHO Capitalism only works for everyone when the workers have some say about their work. Like in Germany where the boards of companies must have laborer members on them. — Noah Te Stroete

There are many prerequisites for capitalism to function well starting from the rule of law (hence a functioning state) in the society. There being a board member representing the employees maybe not the most important issue here. For example the ability of workers creating labour unions and negotiating salaries collectively with the employer is a far more important issue and totally in line with capitalism.

The reality is that some things have higher financial value than others, and we needn't pay a teacher what we pay a surgeon out of a since of fairness, especially in light of what I've said: financial rewards are not a declaration of human worth. If your passion is growing tomatoes, have at it, but you can't expect to sell them for the price of steak. You can't make the world want to buy your produce. — Hanover

I wrote about this in my book. This is a straw man. Of course a teacher shouldn’t make what a surgeon does. But should the Walmart family be worth what their worth while the average worker gets $10/hour? They should have worker board members so they can see how their decisions affect real humans. Then they might not just see them as liabilities on a spreadsheet, and they might get dare I say $17/hour.

Furthermore, the price of a steak and the price of a tomato has nothing to do with who slaughters the cow and who picks the tomato. Our government wrote the laws that say that the factory farm board members determine their compensation AND the compensation for the people who have to do the grunt work. (Jobs that only undocumented workers want to do and are exploited for but that’s another issue altogether.) The laws say the worker doesn’t own anything but his labor which is necessary yet undervalued imho given that Charles Koch probably has more wealth than 50 million Americans combined. Charles Koch was given a huge hand-out in the form of his getting to own so much of the monetary wealth for which he is personally responsible for very little of.

That was my point.

It's pretty obvious that you're just throwing a tantrum because you have no argument, evidence, or logic to back up your claims.

In NKBJ’s defense, she might be arguing that people ought to take a stake (and often do) in the community regardless of how the system treats them personally. — Noah Te Stroete

Thank you for your attempt to reason with the brute, but it seems he's lost that ability for now.

Also, as to your claim about support dropping to 30%, could you supply a source for that please?

I would argue (in the abstract, without having seen the poll in question) that a surveyor telling people they would have to give up private healthcare when the government offers medicare for all is misinformed at best, and at worst lying.

I would argue (in the abstract, without having seen the poll in question) that a surveyor telling people they would have to give up private healthcare when the government offers medicare for all is misinformed at best, and at worst lying. — NKBJ

Medicare-for-all is a replacement for employer-based insurance. Are you thinking about a public option?

Also, as to your claim about support dropping to 30%, could you supply a source for that please? — NKBJ

Sorry, I can’t. It was on MSNBC.

Medicare-for-all is a replacement for employer-based insurance. Are you thinking about a public option? — Noah Te Stroete

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-medicare-for-all-bill-how-would-it-work/

The specifics about how socialized healthcare can and do get implemented differ widely from country to country. So, Medicare-for-all is often combined with some sort of public option, whether that be reduced to only coverage for cosmetic surgeries, or to your total insurance.

Furthermore, I think Sanders was right during the last debate when he pointed out that people aren't dedicated to their insurance companies per se, they just want to keep their doctors--and a socialized system would of course require all health providers to be "in-network" to use that industry's lingo.

From your link:

“Sanders' plan requires eliminating the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance (and since his plan would essentially eliminate employer-provided insurance, it makes no sense to preserve its tax-free status).”

I see where you might be confused. A public option is not private insurance. It’s a government-run alternative to private insurance. It’s what some candidates are advocating as a first step in order to eventually phase out for-profit insurance so we can eventually get to a single payer system. That’s the strategy anyway.

Medicare for all is much more ambitious and disruptive. It’s a huge step all at once.

“Sanders' plan requires eliminating the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance (and since his plan would essentially eliminate employer-provided insurance, it makes no sense to preserve its tax-free status).” — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, his is one of the possibilities for public healthcare. That's not how it has to be run.

I see where you might be confused. A public option is not private insurance. It’s a government-run alternative to private insurance. It’s what some candidates are advocating as a first step in order to eventually phase out for-profit insurance so we can eventually get to a single payer system. That’s the strategy anyway. — Noah Te Stroete

Okay. So that's what you'd be in favor of?

Okay. So that's what you'd be in favor of? — NKBJ

I think so, but if the nominee is for Medicare for all then so be it. I would never vote for the con man.

I would never vote for the con man. — Noah Te Stroete

You mean the Racist-in-Chief?

You mean the Racist-in-Chief? — NKBJ

Yes, the Commander of disinformation.

Orange-Tufted Imbecile Intent on Armageddon

The Orangutan who wants to replace the Jews (unless of course the Jew is his accountant)

Or his son-in-law and daughter!

The Angry Creamsicle

Why do you think philosophy majors are so enamored with socialism? — Wallows

For a start, socialism accords with most major religions. That should garner considerable support for it. And that's just for starters. Alternative political systems - so-called right-wing systems - are based on selfishness and greed. These are difficult (for me, at least) to justify in moral terms. So I gravitate toward socialism. Not state-dictatorship, socialism. Surely many others feel likewise, hence this topic?

Maybe its because they are one of the majors least likely to earn the big bucks. Nobody particularly likes constant self sacrifice, but as a philosophy major you likely will not earn much that will be taken from you and given to others, nor are your wants particularly great. One of the purest forms of socialism is the Kibbutz's in Israel. Evidently they produced good citizens but most left when old enough - a life of constant self sacrifice is hard to sustain.

Thanks
Bill

There were plenty of other Socialists who were around around the time. I tend to assume that Socialism refers to some sort of preferece for an egalitarian socio-economic relationship that goes beyond Social Democracy and that Communism refers to set of ideas proceeding from Karl Marx.

You could, for instance, say that Marxism and Communism effectively mean the same thing but not that Marxism and Socialism do. The meanings, of course, would vary given different contexts.