tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36841665.post7272964133727665005..comments2023-12-31T13:47:05.758+00:00Comments on Fat Man on a Keyboard: Once more unto the breachThe Plumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09244528534476387323noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36841665.post-49846602577030098742008-04-14T20:21:00.000+01:002008-04-14T20:21:00.000+01:00I got thinking about the definition of Socialism a...I got thinking about the definition of Socialism after someone on another blog constantly conflated state action with socialism, so every despot who uses the state to opress people is, in his definition, a socialist.<BR/><BR/>If we didn't have a state, then most people's opportunities in life would be restricted by the circumstances of their birth.<BR/><BR/>So for me the purpose of socialism is to use the state to enable people to be free to make the most of their potential, irrespective of the circumstances of birth, health, whatever, and not have their freedoms eroded by their class.<BR/><BR/>I find this useful. Two examples may illustrate.<BR/><BR/>Cars: The provision of Porsches and Bentleys to the rich has no obvious impact on the relationship between the masses and Ford, Honda, etc. so on this basis there is no Socialist case for intervention in the car market.<BR/><BR/>Houses: Land is limited. The freedom of individuals to buy more than one houses (and I speak as a second home owner) reduces the supply of land to create houses for others not so rich. There is a case for a socialist government to intervene to restrict the freedom of the rich to buy extra houses to increase the freedom of less well off to have access to housing.<BR/><BR/>Of course what you do about it is another matter .....DorsetDipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612884207485991011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36841665.post-15581916232388777022008-04-13T07:18:00.000+01:002008-04-13T07:18:00.000+01:00I should have added the link to my blog post refer...I should have added the link to my blog post referred to in my last comment. It is here:<BR/><BR/>http://peterbracken.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/the-end-of-party-politics/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36841665.post-1454902320116297502008-04-13T07:04:00.000+01:002008-04-13T07:04:00.000+01:00I agree with some of this, but not the most import...I agree with some of this, but not the most important (and hopeful) of your observations: namely, that socialism may yet have its day.<BR/><BR/>Socialism is incompatible with the consensus party politics that prevails in most Western democracies. This is because the issues that used to give it traction (and which once defined ones party political allegience) are fundamentally dead, and have since been replaced by others about which there are shared objectives: poverty, third world development, the environment, terrorism.<BR/><BR/>As I say on my blog, that's why "choosing between our political parties today is not much different from the ‘choice’ served up to consumers of Persil, Ariel and Daz." <BR/><BR/>Of course, there is still some political fighting at the margins, including in the UK, and with crank organisations like the BNP and Stop the War Coalition, that it is to be expected. But among the big three, all Joe Public sees is distinctions without a difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36841665.post-61595770601292125892008-04-13T00:14:00.000+01:002008-04-13T00:14:00.000+01:00Very interesting. But I still wonder why we let fa...Very interesting. But I still wonder why we let fat people eat carbs and sugar--their irresponsible gluttony keeps making my medical costs go up! Since no one is responsible for their behavior any more, they're oughta belaws governing what fat people can consume.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com