Jim Carrey: 'We Have to Say Yes to Socialism'

[DMC]

No, those people can't decide as to who gets to use the public beach. They only can make rules as to when and how it is to be used based on the desires of the public as a whole.

The good thing for you not being the sole owner is that you don't have to pick up other people's beer cans

"As a whole". There's no such en y.

[DMC]

What if I want to have pie on the beach?
What if the entire group wants to have pie?

I'm sure you have coupons.

[DMC]

The logical step for those 111 people is keep adding people until they can all build a community and all get fed (the non individualistic optic). Or get tired of waiting and flee somewhere else (individualistic). IMO, there’s no right or wrong, they’re decisions made every day by people from all walks of life.

But the 111 isn't an en y either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

[Blake]

"As a whole". There's no such en y.

Sure there is. It's defined in law/ordinance/code etc.

[Blake]

But the 111 isn't an en y either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

Now you're just bogging down on semantics.

Shooting par.

[DMC]

Now you're just bogging down on semantics.

Shooting par.

And you're a 3rd party observer - per par

[DMC]

Sure there is. It's defined in law/ordinance/code etc.

It's a concept.

[Blake]

And you're a 3rd party observer - per par

It's a public message board.

[Blake]

It's a concept.

It's a legal concept that's practiced.

[FrostKing]

Don't take it personally, I was just pointing out that it's fairly common for Americans to see things through individualism, because that's what's ingrained in them.

The example you put together was actually a text-book case. From an individualist optic, if there's a pie for 10 people, adding an 11th person is a (personal) affront. That 11th person might be a cook that can make pies for everybody, but the first instinct is to think about it in terms of me and mine.

I'm not going to berate anybody for thinking in those terms, but that line of thinking is closer to dogma, and in that sense, it makes it more difficult to have an expansive view of the problems and solutions.

Well yah, America is all about individualism. "Express yourself". I.e. doesn't matter where you came from, you can be anything you dream of here.

My parents California cul-de-sac: classic white American family, my Polish parents, Filipinos, Arabs and now black family moved in. Same diversity at my job. And at my gym.

We speak different languages, eat different foods and follow different cultural norms. Together we respect our mutual space from one another. Socialism would never work here.

[DMC]

It's a legal concept that's practiced.

A public en y is a governing body, not the public itself. A group doesn't make a decision. A person makes a decision and the group will either have a representative or they will take a vote. The vote total will decide the majority. It has been decided, but on an individual level. People don't flee for socialist reasons. They flee for personal reasons. Hunger is an individual issue that can be solved by a group. Even though each person has the same problem they don't share it.

Anthropomorphism might help individuals understand outcomes but it still doesn't make a group of people into a single en y.

[DMC]

It's a public message board.

Actually it's a privately owned message board.

[Blake]

Actually it's a privately owned message board.

That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

[DMC]

That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

Pithy edit

So the general public can come and go as they please without needing to register for membership?

[Blake]

A public en y is a governing body, not the public itself. A group doesn't make a decision. A person makes a decision and the group will either have a representative or they will take a vote. The vote total will decide the majority. It has been decided, but on an individual level. People don't flee for socialist reasons. They flee for personal reasons. Hunger is an individual issue that can be solved by a group. Even though each person has the same problem they don't share it.

Anthropomorphism might help individuals understand outcomes but it still doesn't make a group of people into a single en y.

Oh hey, a goal post move. No way!

[DMC]

Oh hey, a goal post move. No way!

It's a public message board.

That they opened to the public. That's why I'm talking to you, genius.

[Blake]

Pithy edit

So the general public can come and go as they please without needing to register for membership?

Needing to register is irrelevant to it falling under the definition of public. There are no restrictions or member fees to enter here.

You questioned what "public as a whole" is and now you're all over the place.

[Blake]

Oh hey, a nonsensical emoticon. No way!

[ElNono]

I don't believe there can be such a thing as social ownership of anything. A fine example would be public beaches. You can say it's public, but it's managed by people who decide who can and who cannot use it. The rules that apply to the beaches including curfews and such are chosen by a council, mostly, and everyone else just has to obey them. This doesn't seem like something I own. It seems like something I can access. Large groups of people can have collective ownership but the larger the group the more diluted your actual ownership influence becomes, and without influence what good is ownership? You can be ruled right out of your own property.

It’s done by proxy from government, who are elected by the people. It’s not really different than asking who owns the airplanes on the US Airforce.

But, I also think your argument makes sense under communism, not necessarily socialism. Under communism there’s a strict abolishment of property rights. It’s an extreme take on socialism. Socialism in itself is just the concept of government ownership, it doesn’t mandate it or precludes from using a mixed system

[ElNono]

But the 111 isn't an en y either. It's 111 individuals. Until they select a leader who tells everyone what to do, or they all vote on it (with the group in mind, no individual agendas) then you have chaos.

Well, the original concept was a pretty severe reduction of society. Except for rare cases, we’re well past that.

[Blake]

But, I also think your argument makes sense under communism, not necessarily socialism. Under communism there’s a strict abolishment of property rights. It’s an extreme take on socialism.

Also under HOA covenants.

[ElNono]

Under HOA you forego certain rights under contract, not forced by government. Plus, you still own property in that case. It’s a different situation.

[AaronY]

It is with a heavy heart that I must report that Chris is actually right about something..Socialism really does ing blow tbh

[AaronY]

Also, Jim Carrey is a nutjob. How much of his wealth do you think he's spread around to the needy?

I cant stand far left bull but I never get this rightwing talking point..hes literally volunteering to be part of the rich group who is heavily taxed to pay for you and I's health care and other welfare programs. Never made sense to me this argument tbh

[Blake]

Under HOA you forego certain rights under contract, not forced by government. Plus, you still own property in that case. It’s a different situation.

True it's not 1980s Soviet Union in that you are free to leave the same way you were free not to move there to begin with.

But if you fail to pay membership dues you can say bye to the property you thought you owned.