Politics So I guess when the s**t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

[Johnny Bananas]

What were the colonies doing? Especially as they didn’t have open borders.

The colonies had to pay people to come here, since Australia was a less attractive destination than North America and the journey cost money. I can't find any immigration restrictions they had in place, but I'd be interested to hear if they did. Given there were tens of thousands of Chinese people here prior to 1901, I'm guessing there weren't any.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So did everyone enjoy their socialism trip? Or are many of you previously in support of it, have now had a change of heart? Or somewhere in between?

 

[Gethelred]

So did everyone enjoy their socialism trip? Or are many of you previously in support of it, have now had a change of heart? Or somewhere in between?

Remind me again; what industries have been nationalised by the government recently?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Remind me again; what industries have been nationalised by the government recently?

Nationalism! The opposite of globalism, apart from that I don't know what you're asking here.

 

[Gethelred]

Nationalism! The opposite of globalism, apart from that I don't know what you're asking here.

Socialism is the collectivisation of a societies resources by the government. So, again, remind me which industries have been taken control of by the government that were not already being run by the government, and I'll concede the point.

Otherwise, you're mislabeling what's being done at the moment as socialism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Socialism is the collectivisation of a societies resources by the government. So, again, remind me which industries have been taken control of by the government that were not already being run by the government, and I'll concede the point.

Otherwise, you're mislabeling what's being done at the moment as socialism.

Oh ok Mofra the op disagrees with your definition of what socialism is.

I'll rephrase the question just for you mate for more important substance than whatever the definition should or should not be.

How have you enjoyed less freedom of choice applied to you by the govs fed and state? Would you prefer lockdowns as a constant way of life in our society vs the liberal democratic westernised country we were pre pandemic?

 

[Number37]

Socialism is the collectivisation of a societies resources by the government. So, again, remind me which industries have been taken control of by the government that were not already being run by the government, and I'll concede the point.

Otherwise, you're mislabeling what's being done at the moment as socialism.

Let's not let facts get in the way.

 

[Gethelred]

Oh ok Mofra the op disagrees with your definition of what socialism is.

I'll rephrase the question just for you mate for more important substance than whatever the definition should or should not be.

How have you enjoyed less freedom of choice applied to you by the govs fed and state? Would you prefer lockdowns as a constant way of life in our society vs the liberal democratic westernised country we were pre pandemic?

It's interesting; your rephrasing doesn't seem to denote political opinion where the prior phrasing did. Could that be because we had a mixed economy before, we still have a mixed economy now (albeit one with less freedom of action than before) and that everything is essentially the same? Mofra's thread title is clearly tongue in cheek; your post was not.

I agree with you that the current restrictions on our freedoms are not what I want, long term; I am however willing to listen to the experts when they inform me and mine that they are here to protect not necessarily me but the vulnerable in our society from getting the virus, just as I was willing to listen to different experts when they told me that we could and should raise the Newstart prior to this status quo.

What I reject from what you're saying is that this is a taste of socialism, because that is an outright falsehood manufactured for the purposes of winning an argument.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's interesting; your rephrasing doesn't seem to denote political opinion where the prior phrasing did. Could that be because we had a mixed economy before, we still have a mixed economy now (albeit one with less freedom of action than before) and that everything is essentially the same? Mofra's thread title is clearly tongue in cheek; your post was not.

I agree with you that the current restrictions on our freedoms are not what I want, long term; I am however willing to listen to the experts when they inform me and mine that they are here to protect not necessarily me but the vulnerable in our society from getting the virus, just as I was willing to listen to different experts when they told me that we could and should raise the Newstart prior to this status quo.

What I reject from what you're saying is that this is a taste of socialism, because that is an outright falsehood manufactured for the purposes of winning an argument.

Interesting, you've posted a long winded 3 page paragraph to answer the question along with unnecessarily blabbing about the necessity of the lockdowns. Every man and his dog and the dogs bowl knows that. Waste of BF real estate there.

You've also used it to somehow paint that I have an ulterior motive. Insert eye roll here.

Whichever way you wanna look at it, socialism does / would actually require restrictions of freedoms more so than what we're used to. That's all I'm asking, what would one prefer, not to start an argument. Predictably you've suggested that's my aim.

 

[Gethelred]

Interesting, you've posted a long winded 3 page paragraph to answer the question along with unnecessarily blabbing about the necessity of the lockdowns. Every man and his dog and the dogs bowl knows that. Waste of BF real estate there.

You've also used it to somehow paint that I have an ulterior motive. Insert eye roll here.

Whichever way you wanna look at it, socialism does / would actually require restrictions of freedoms more so than what we're used to. That's all I'm asking, what would one prefer, not to start an argument. Predictably you've suggested that's my aim.

Touched a nerve, did I?

Perhaps, if a conversation is what you want to start, try doing so in a way that does not resemble the half a dozen different alt accounts that are all whinging about the restrictions, hmm?

As for long winded, guilty as charged. Never waste time with a spoon when there's a shovel handy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Touched a nerve, did I?

Perhaps, if a conversation is what you want to start, try doing so in a way that does not resemble the half a dozen different alt accounts that are all whinging about the restrictions, hmm?

As for long winded, guilty as charged. Never waste time with a spoon when there's a shovel handy.

lol. Nerve! Funny,

Where and when did I whinge about necessity? Your attempt to paint me as anti lockdown is very predictable.

Call it socialism, call it a mixed economy, call it Carlton footy club for all I care. Which seems to be your point of contention, what the definition is, not the change in societal function - which is more important. I'm merely asking the question of what one would prefer.

So you come charging in, incorrectly assuming I'm trying to raise an argument. Seems I touched the nerve from the start, because I didn't use the exact literal word or words to your liking.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

How have you enjoyed less freedom of choice applied to you by the govs fed and state?

Nobody particularly enjoys it, but it's what had to be done to prevent mass deaths. Saving lives is more important than my freedom of choice for two months. And less freedom of choice does not constitute socialism.

Would you prefer lockdowns as a constant way of life in our society vs the liberal democratic westernised country we were pre pandemic?

Imagine living through the past two months and thinking that lockdowns don't happen in liberal democratic Western societies. Or that socialism is incompatible with liberal democracy. Or that lockdowns constitute socialism. You seem to want to use socialism as a catch-all buzzword for anything you don't like, when it has an actual definition relating to who owns the means of production.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So did everyone enjoy their socialism trip freedom restrictions ? Or are many of you previously in support of it freedom restrictions, have now had a change of heart? Or somewhere in between?

EFA just for you Gethelred . Just to show I'm interested in the actual effects and how people view them, rather than a less important literal to the letter definition of what freedom restrictions are.

Hopefully this un touches your nerve.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Nobody particularly enjoys it, but it's what had to be done to prevent mass deaths. Saving lives is more important than my freedom of choice for two months. And less freedom of choice does not constitute socialism.


Imagine living through the past two months and thinking that lockdowns don't happen in liberal democratic Western societies. Or that socialism is incompatible with liberal democracy. Or that lockdowns constitute socialism. You seem to want to use socialism as a catch-all buzzword for anything you don't like, when it has an actual definition relating to who owns the means of production.

I don't know if you've read my replies to gethelred or not, maybe you should. Unless you've been living on Mars, every dog s**t and resident fly knows the necessity of the lockdowns. Not something I disagree with, you're wasting BF real estate here.

So I'll ask the question to you, in the hope you can comprehend. Would you prefer freedom restrictions post pandemic when they're no longer necessary? Would you prefer a society with less freedom of enterprise?

 

[Gethelred]

lol. Nerve! Funny,

Where and when did I whinge about necessity? Your attempt to paint me as anti lockdown is very predictable.

Call it socialism, call it a mixed economy, call it Carlton footy club for all I care. Which seems to be your point of contention, what the definition is, not the change in societal function - which is more important. I'm merely asking the question of what one would prefer.

So you come charging in, incorrectly assuming I'm trying to raise an argument. Seems I touched the nerve from the start, because I didn't use the exact literal word or words to your liking.

I took my cues from your belligerent reply and your terminology. If your issue is the withdrawal of freedoms from the populace at large, perhaps direct your post towards those directly, instead of trying to attack an ideology as you did in your initial post.

You kind of flipped out a bit. It happens a lot on here; one person makes what they'd consider to be a fairly mild beginning, only to have it either misinterpreted or used as ammunition against them in an ongoing spat. Perhaps a better tenor of discourse would allow for a fairer interpretation of your initial post, but I'm not holding my breath.

And, seeing as you brought it up: words are the currency we trade in here, so the meanings of them tend towards being rather important. Accuracy of definition central to understanding, ergo my disputation of your initial point - "Who's enjoying their taste of socialism" - as an incorrect categorisation is necessary before the conversation you are interested in to even begin.

Would you prefer freedom restrictions post pandemic when they're no longer necessary? Would you prefer a society with less freedom of enterprise?

No, but who would?

 

[Carringbush2010]

No, but who would?

I'd imagine there'd be some, not many. Some even on BF give the impression that they'd want more state control in non pandemic times for whatever reason or a less free for all society that we live in - usually - if you will. Even in this mixed economy as you correctly put it.

 

[Gethelred]

I'd imagine there'd be some, not many. Some even on BF give the impression that they'd want more state control in non pandemic times for whatever reason or a less free for all society that we live in - usually - if you will. Even in this mixed economy as you correctly put it.

I'd be buggered if I can think of why. I'd love to be able to train footy, to go to the nets and have a bat, go to the gym, get a decent steak that I didn't have to cook myself.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd be buggered if I can think of why. I'd love to be able to train footy, to go to the nets and have a bat, go to the gym, get a decent steak that I didn't have to cook myself.

Things that aren't as freely available in societies that are not as liberal as ours. I think that's the whole premise of the thread, tongue in cheek or not, it does raise a valid point.

Societies that lean toward socialism or even communism, however one wants to label it, does have similarities to what we've had to do by necessity. Those societies are designed more or less to have more state control over the populace than what we're used to.

My question is whether or not one would be in favour of continued state control, that we're experiencing now, when no longer necessary. That's all it is.

 

[Gethelred]

Things that aren't as freely available in societies that are not as liberal as ours. I think that's the whole premise of the thread, tongue in cheek or not, it does raise a valid point.

Societies that lean toward socialism or even communism, however one wants to label it, does have similarities to what we've had to do by necessity. Those societies are designed more or less to have more state control over the populace than what we're used to.

The issue I take is that, while your first paragraph is indeed correct, your second paragraph singles out socialism and communism, where nationalism, fascism both restrict and restrain the freedoms of the majority, and capitalism is a system in that your freedom is restricted by your financial wherewithal.

Provided what we're talking is liberty, I'm on board. If we're turning this into yet another left/right thing, I'm out, or at least my objections are noted.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The issue I take is that, while your first paragraph is indeed correct, your second paragraph singles out socialism and communism, where nationalism, fascism both restrict and restrain the freedoms of the majority, and capitalism is a system in that your freedom is restricted by your financial wherewithal.

Provided what we're talking is liberty, I'm on board. If we're turning this into yet another left/right thing, I'm out, or at least my objections are noted.

No the intent is not a left / right wing debate on it, fascism is akin to dictatorship - much worse than a well intended communist or socialist society IMO. Capitalism does have unintended drawbacks as you've rightly pointed out - it also allows more individual freedom than any other model (liberty), if well intended.

I'm merely interested in one's view on what they'd prefer.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I don't know if you've read my replies to gethelred or not, maybe you should.

I have, and they seem disingenuous. But anyway...

Unless you've been living on Mars, every dog s**t and resident fly knows the necessity of the lockdowns. Not something I disagree with, you're wasting BF real estate here.

It served as part of a response along with the words preceding it. If you're not willing to take them all together in a response to your question, then you're wasting BF real estate here (as though that's scarce or something).

So I'll ask the question to you, in the hope you can comprehend. Would you prefer freedom restrictions post pandemic when they're no longer necessary?

No, because I enjoy going to the pub, eating at restaurants and coming within 1.5m of my friends.

Would you prefer a society with less freedom of enterprise?

I'd like you to define what you mean by that. If you mean restrictions on movement and operating hours, no. There are aspects to economic freedom that I think are harmful for society at large, although none of them changed in the isolation period.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Societies that lean toward socialism or even communism, however one wants to label it, does have similarities to what we've had to do by necessity. Those societies are designed more or less to have more state control over the populace than what we're used to.

No they don't. Authoritarianism doesn't have to have anything to do with economic systems. Liberal states with state-controlled economies have existed, as have authoritarian states with corporate-controlled economies.

 

[Mofra]

No they don't. Authoritarianism doesn't have to have anything to do with economic systems. Liberal states with state-controlled economies have existed, as have authoritarian states with corporate-controlled economies.

If you're looking for correlation between personal liberties and state organisation, I'd be looking to how democratic a nation is. The subjugation of democracy (or its complete absence) is the major sign of how free a populace is. It's not a left/right proposition.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I have, and they seem disingenuous. But anyway...


It served as part of a response along with the words preceding it. If you're not willing to take them all together in a response to your question, then you're wasting BF real estate here (as though that's scarce or something).


No, because I enjoy going to the pub, eating at restaurants and coming within 1.5m of my friends.


I'd like you to define what you mean by that. If you mean restrictions on movement and operating hours, no. There are aspects to economic freedom that I think are harmful for society at large, although none of them changed in the isolation period.

Freedom of enterprise, every single citizen in a liberal democratic western society is allowed to exercise freedom of enterprise. Using entrepreneurial skills to better themselves in a competition based society an example.

From your answers, it's clear you prefer a freer society for the individual more than a populace ruled more by state. Thanks for your input.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No they don't. Authoritarianism doesn't have to have anything to do with economic systems. Liberal states with state-controlled economies have existed, as have authoritarian states with corporate-controlled economies.

That's akin to saying a country like China, governed by the Chinese Communist Party, that their citizens live in a liberal society like you and I. That's debatable.

The very intent of communism is equality for every citizen and measures put in place to achieve that intent, in it's most basic form. Yes I know this does not mirror China exactly.

Authoritarianism is a by product, hijacked by ill intended individuals, not an intent of any one societal model.