Does socialism unjustly regulate morality??

[screwed869]

we all know that right-wing conservatism is bullshit with its religious morality and such, but is the same true for socialism? even though socialism preaces social freedom, it doesn't allow for economic freedom. are both unjust regulating morality? is libertarianism the only way out?

[man in the red suit]

what do you consider to be economic freedom?

a free market economy?!!? I hope not.

[Ian]

Most of today's morality is just mysticism and idealism, ever wonder why ethicist groups are filled with priests and ministers? Of course there would be morals in socialism but these are types of morals that are already common-place! Morals, I believe, cannot be unjustly enforced, they can only 'be' (I don't make sense)...
Economic freedom to me is only possible when we are truely communist.

[Nateddi]

screwed reminds me of myself at 13

pissed off at the religious right, supporting "libertariansm" lmao @ myself.

[Mazdak]

Of course not. Why should the government regulate something like morality? AS long as you don't kill, rape, molest children, animals, trees and corpses you are going to have fun in Jim Jones land.

[new democracy]

--EQUALITY OR "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY"?: Elites can only stay in power by persuading people that the elite are the source of progress toward goals which the people consider important. Most people believe in equality. The ruling class defines equality in terms of competing interest groups. The capitalist view creates categories divorced from the context of class society, by defining "women" or "African Americans" or "white males" or "Asian Americans" as groups with competing goals and interests. It thereby redefines equality to mean equal opportunity to get ahead in an unequal society, rather than creating a classless society.

Through programs such as affirmative action, the ruling class defines racial or gender equality in terms of competition for jobs which the ruling class has made artificially scarce. The goal of affirmative action and other such programs is not to eliminate class inequality or even to help the supposed beneficiaries of such programs, whether women or racial minorities, but to pit working people against each other and preserve the system of inequality.

it is taken from "introducing new democracy".

[screwed869]

i see freedom divided in two areas: economic and social.
ok i see a free market economy isn't truly free, but under socialism, would there be social freedom, like freedom of speech

[Nateddi]

socialism = economic system
free speech = non-economic issue

in sweded, 90% of the economy is owned by the state, I do not see them as a dictatorship. almost every former-soviet satillite has elected socialist governments democratically in the 90s.

socialism may or may not have great political freedom, I don't see it as a correlation though.

[Nateddi]

>>Why should the government regulate something like morality?

Mazdak,

What specificially is the function of government? What is the measuere of the worth of a society?

[Pinko]

Every type of government (except anarchy) regulates morality to some extent, laws are regulations on morality. They dictate what is and is not acceptable in society. However people will always try to get around laws (finding loop holes and technicalities are two examples), to this there are two mutually exclusive options.
1) Legislate.
Make the laws more and more complicated to cover every possibility. This leads to a bureaucratic nightmare. With overpayed law representatives (lawyers/solicitors) making justice inaccessible to the poor.

2) Lassitude (best one word, snappy term I could think of)
This is where your dealers of justice are not specialised in interpreting the letter of the law, but are well versed in the spirit of the law. They use common sense to apply the law on a case by case basis. This system is more open to abuse, but with a sound education stretching back generations a good moral base can be built up in society.

Education and example are the key to improving society.

(Edited by Pinko at 2:39 am on Sep. 1, 2002)

[Ian]

Every type of government (except anarchy)
Anarchy is as much a government as baldness is a hair colour...

[Anonymous]

humm screwed has a point! see i post in another forum (comunismo.pt-org) and its also a leftist forum, well they are all 100% anti-bulfights, yet the portuguese rural people wants bulfights, and true be said they dont harm noone with theyr bulfights! but the problem is those "leftists" want to force people to stop them, because they are barbaric and ruthless, yet the people always had bulfightsm and the people wants bulfights, no mather how hard they opose them the bulfights still go one, well i suport them(the bulfights), yet i think they are barbaric, and i never watched one, arent them being fascists? i mean trying to stop something it has always been done, something that although barbaric is alredy our culture? Arent they forcing people to acept theyr "socialism"? although this as nothing to do with economy i think its a good point to clear!

[Ymir]

Do they eat the bull afterwards? If it is eaten then it is not wasted and is not "barbaric".

[EricDHobo]

A free market economy only gives the pricks the oppourtunity to screw the nice guys.