196

16579 readers

1680 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

367

That's rich rule (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

            
              corruption is a power difference thing — the system is not the problem, but socialist governments want more power over more things (more power difference, easier access to corruption ); again : this is just my opinion and we should respect our disagreements instead of downvoting :( I thought Lemmy was an inclusive place .
farms should not be subsidized IMHO, maybe give farmers interest free loans instead
roads can be mantained and paid for by private parties, what’s wrong with a dirt road? Let’s build trains instead .
last point: we agree

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Not who you replied to, but there is a massive misconception here that must be addressed.

Socialist governments shift power from unaccountable, anti-democratic Capitalists to a more democratically accountable state. This is not an "easier access to corruption," but a removal of that which corruption was assumed as a given. Additionally, by rejecting the profit motive, you remove lobbying and other methods by which the wealthy shape and shift the state, corruption itself is minimized.

Your assumption that Capitalists are somehow not corrupt when exploitation is a requirement for there to be a Capitalist is the key issue here.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Thanks for the formatting, helps me a lot. I'll do my best to have the discussion you want.

If it's your opinion it's your opinion. I don't think that 'wanting more power over more things' is something inherent to socialism. All governments take power over things when they think it's necessary. A particularly controversial example would be abortion restrictions. That is an extreme intrusion by a government into the literal organs of its citizens but to a religious capitalist it makes sense. Need more workers and more consumers after all.
I don't see that there's any meaningful difference between an interest free loan and a subsidy. Say the farmers don't pay up and ask for another loan, are you gonna starve on principle?
Lots is wrong with dirt roads, they're just inefficient. So much money and resource spent on fixing and maintaining vehicle suspensions and the extra time needed to go slowly which is all unnecessary with a proper road. I love trains but they can't do everything, we're not running tracks to every home in order for the mail train to come deliver your package etc.

As for private parties, this is also just the least efficient way to do things. Roads need to be compatible with each other, have the same spacings the same areas for communal services like electricity water and gas and so on. Who's gonna enforce all that with no profit motive? It would have to be a government entity, at which point the government might as well just build the roads in the first place and charge everyone a general usage fee, but since it's a government this is called 'Road tax' and is already implemented in most European countries. This isn't even socialism it's just the basics of what governments are for: taking care of 'societal chores'.