Jump to content

What do you watch everyday that is socialism at its finest?


scintrigue
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NCAA Football and all sport, NFL, MLB, NBA.......

 

How do you feel about the socialism model being used with these organizations? The NFL seems to do great.

 

It's great to see a socialist defend socialism in one breath and try and convince everyone that 0bama is not a socialist in another breath.

 

Liberals are very confused and liberalism is a mental disorder. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice point.... so why do you draw the comparison to a socialist when Barry isnt one?

 

Also, it's not accurate to call a private organization socialist. only a government can be socialist. players and owners can theoretically opt out. whereas a citizen of a socialist regime is compelled by the force of the government to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice point.... so why do you draw the comparison to a socialist when Barry isnt one?

 

Also, it's not accurate to call a private organization socialist. only a government can be socialist. players and owners can theoretically opt out. whereas a citizen of a socialist regime is compelled by the force of the government to comply.

 

 

I like my version better. Ridicule and sarcasm rocks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i complemented your post and solicited an answer...and subsequently stated that i believe that the analogy was not apt... i believe the second point was a distinct idea which merited stating.

 

It is not obvious to whom you were responding. Try using the quote button next time. I thought you were responding to another post. This post above was directed to me correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NCAA Football and all sport, NFL, MLB, NBA.......

 

How do you feel about the socialism model being used with these organizations? The NFL seems to do great.

I actually hate salary caps, revenue sharing, the concept of a rookie draft, etc. There are definitely sports out there with very few socialist qualities to them. Strangely, most of them are in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to see a socialist defend socialism in one breath and try and convince everyone that 0bama is not a socialist in another breath.

 

Liberals are very confused and liberalism is a mental disorder. LOL!

 

1. I never defended it I just asked for everyone thoughts on the matter. You just totally changed the subject.

 

2. Liberalism is mis-catagorized a lot. Please feel free to look it up in the dictronary and then tell me it is a mental disorder. If so our founding fathers were nut jobs.

 

 

 

 

nice point.... so why do you draw the comparison to a socialist when Barry isnt one?

 

Also, it's not accurate to call a private organization socialist. only a government can be socialist. players and owners can theoretically opt out. whereas a citizen of a socialist regime is compelled by the force of the government to comply.

 

It can be, but it can also be an organization either public or direct-worker ownership (the franchises).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Liberalism is mis-catagorized a lot. Please feel free to look it up in the dictronary and then tell me it is a mental disorder. If so our founding fathers were nut jobs.

 

Your right, Liberalism was hijacked by the progressive movement. The progressive movement started roughly around the time of Woodrow Wilson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Liberalism is mis-catagorized a lot. Please feel free to look it up in the dictronary and then tell me it is a mental disorder. If so our founding fathers were nut jobs.

 

Your right, Liberalism was hijacked by the progressive movement. The progressive movement started roughly around the time of Woodrow Wilson.

 

Liberals today have bastardized Classical Liberalism* such that not only do they not come close to it but they are divorced from it practically speaking.

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

*http://www.classical-liberal.com/

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his point is: If you are an opponent of 'socialism' all together, than you should not be a flag bearer for: college football players not being paid the money they bring in, the 19 year old age limit for the NBA draft, team revenue sharing, salary caps, anti-team relocation policies, anti free agency policies in sports (to name a few). Sports have become the most socialized element of our society, yet everyone seems to love them.

 

It would seem that a true capitalist would be completely be against any of the aforesaid things, since they are all policies established to restrict the capital one can truly gain from their investment or talent in order to protect of the benefits of the whole (socialist)

Edited by PJackson'sDred15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his point is: Why does it seem that the staunchest opponents of 'socialism' are also the flag bearers for college athletes not being paid' date=' the 19 year old age limit for the NBA draft, team revenue sharing, anti-team relocation policies, and free agency in sports.[/quote']

 

I am a staunch opponent of socialism. I think college athletes should get paid, don't really care about an age limit for the NBA, disagree with team revenue sharing, and think free agency as it exists is not really free agency. Not sure what you mean by anti-team relocation policies.

 

Who are all of the opponents of socialism who are flag-bearers of the things you mentioned?

 

Unless you can provide examples, I don't think your opinion carries water.

I can surely be persuaded otherwise with some concrete examples.

Edited by RockneDrive
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his point is: Why does it seem that the staunchest opponents of 'socialism' are also the flag bearers for college athletes not being paid' date=' the 19 year old age limit for the NBA draft, team revenue sharing, anti-team relocation policies, and free agency in sports.[/quote']

 

i dont think i can speak for anyone else but I think the idea that college atheletes dont get a fair cut of the revenues derived from their hard work is an outrage.

Similarly, i think pro atheletes and employees of all kinds should angle for the best pay and job security they can possibly get.

the problem is, could you really pay all college athelets? or just the one's in profitable sports?

This is currently the case, with the NCAA coming in and saying that D1 Football players should get paid... but only as much as DI women's swimmers. (in this case, a scholarship) This isnt to say that those girls dont work their butts off, it is just to say that there is a smaller audience willing to pay to see them.

 

i dont know, i think the current system of the NCAA is pretty socialist, if we are to invoke that word for nongovernmental applicaitons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a staunch opponent of socialism. I think college athletes should get paid, don't really care about an age limit for the NBA, disagree with team revenue sharing, and think free agency as it exists is not really free agency. Not sure what you mean by anti-team relocation policies.

 

Who are all of the opponents of socialism who are flag-bearers of the things you mentioned?

 

Unless you can provide examples, I don't think your opinion carries water.

I can surely be persuaded otherwise with some concrete examples.

 

Okay but you contribute to it correct? And you like the product right?

 

If there were no Team revenue sharing especcially in the MLB you would have half the teams. Not to mention salary caps that are in place to give some parody in the NFL and NBA. If you did not have that, you would have the National 3-4 teams basketball organization and it would crumble.

 

In addition, if college athletes were paid you would have about 16 teams worthy of division 1 football. Most universitys especcially public would not be able to support their football programs. And also they do get paid with an education, free rent, and meals. A generic ND football player comes away with roughly 70k a year as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay but you contribute to it correct? And you like the product right?

 

If there were no Team revenue sharing especcially in the MLB you would have half the teams. Not to mention salary caps that are in place to give some parody in the NFL and NBA. If you did not have that, you would have the National 3-4 teams basketball organization and it would crumble.

 

In addition, if college athletes were paid you would have about 16 teams worthy of division 1 football. Most universitys especcially public would not be able to support their football programs. And also they do get paid with an education, free rent, and meals. A generic ND football player comes away with roughly 70k a year as it is.

So, you say that "anti-socialist" people are the ones supporting all of these policies, then you come out and support all of the policies? I'm really confused now... Ah, nevermind, you never said that. Sorry about that.

 

Anyway, I still watch the NFL even though I have a problem with their policies. Seeing as they essentially run a monopoly, there aren't many alternatives out there. As bad as the policies are, the NFL is better than most other TV options on a Sunday afternoon. I won't plan my day around it though.

 

And I don't think you would have a league collapse like you say. 1) More teams are profitable than the owners would like you to believe. 2) A lot of people just think it's really cool to own a team. The profit margin is not the driving factor.

 

As far as the cash equivalent, the issue is that the kids aren't paid in cash. The value is, essentially, an arbitrarily defined one. If they were given the 70k that you estimate, and then paid the school back in tuition, I have a feeling a lot of those kids would walk away with a lot of cash. Remember, a very large majority at ND get some sort of financial aid (I think the number is just above 80%).

Edited by cjdomer04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay but you contribute to it correct? And you like the product right?

 

If there were no Team revenue sharing especcially in the MLB you would have half the teams. Not to mention salary caps that are in place to give some parody in the NFL and NBA. If you did not have that, you would have the National 3-4 teams basketball organization and it would crumble.

 

In addition, if college athletes were paid you would have about 16 teams worthy of division 1 football. Most universitys especcially public would not be able to support their football programs. And also they do get paid with an education, free rent, and meals. A generic ND football player comes away with roughly 70k a year as it is.

 

What I think about the way the NFL does its business, whether I agree with it or not doesn't mean crap. It won't affect what they do one bit. And it's unknown and presumptive to assume to know what would happen to the NFL if it didn't do what it is now doing.

 

I just stated my opinion as a staunch opponent of socialism who isn't a flag-bearer for the things mentioned by another poster, which contradicts his thesis.

Edited by RockneDrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think about the way the NFL does its business, whether I agree with it or not doesn't mean crap. It won't affect what they do one bit. And it's unknown and presumptive to assume to know what would happen to the NFL if it didn't do what it is now doing.

 

I just stated my opinion as a staunch opponent of socialism who isn't a flag-bearer for the things mentioned by another poster, which contradicts his thesis.

 

Well lets use the NFL as an example.

 

1. No Salary Caps.

2. No Revenue Sharing

3. No age limit

 

What would happen to college football as a result and the NFL? Do you think the products would be better for both the NCAA and NFL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his point is: If you are an opponent of 'socialism' all together, than you should not be a flag bearer for: college football players not being paid the money they bring in, the 19 year old age limit for the NBA draft, team revenue sharing, salary caps, anti-team relocation policies, anti free agency policies in sports (to name a few). Sports have become the most socialized element of our society, yet everyone seems to love them.

 

It would seem that a true capitalist would be completely be against any of the aforesaid things, since they are all policies established to restrict the capital one can truly gain from their investment or talent in order toprotect of the benefits of the whole (socialist)

 

 

Ummm, sports teams don't steal money from people that work in order to support those who do not. Actually, I'm not even sure there is a plausible parallel between sports and society in this thread. Sports are in the business of entertainment which, IMHO cannot even be made a comparison with socialism over an entire society/economy.

 

The US Government is a PUBLIC entity. The NFL is a PRIVATE entity and private entities can do whatever the hell they choose to do. I can choose not to go to an NFL or Notre Dame game if I don't like what they are doing. If Barry has his way I cannot choose not to support single mothers that have 7 kids from 5 different fathers all of which chose not to make anything out of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you say that "anti-socialist" people are the ones supporting all of these policies, then you come out and support all of the policies? I'm really confused now... Ah, nevermind, you never said that. Sorry about that.

 

Anyway, I still watch the NFL even though I have a problem with their policies. Seeing as they essentially run a monopoly, there aren't many alternatives out there. As bad as the policies are, the NFL is better than most other TV options on a Sunday afternoon. I won't plan my day around it though.

 

And I don't think you would have a league collapse like you say. 1) More teams are profitable than the owners would like you to believe. 2) A lot of people just think it's really cool to own a team. The profit margin is not the driving factor.

 

As far as the cash equivalent, the issue is that the kids aren't paid in cash. The value is, essentially, an arbitrarily defined one. If they were given the 70k that you estimate, and then paid the school back in tuition, I have a feeling a lot of those kids would walk away with a lot of cash. Remember, a very large majority at ND get some sort of financial aid (I think the number is just above 80%).[/QUOTE]

 

That would be great in a perfect world. And possibly great for your children whom I am going to assume are responsible. But face the facts if you paid these kids 70 k half of them would drop out, some would go into bankrupcty before their second year of college, and just a variety of other mis-deeds I wont get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets use the NFL as an example.

 

1. No Salary Caps.

2. No Revenue Sharing

3. No age limit

 

What would happen to college football as a result and the NFL? Do you think the products would be better for both the NCAA and NFL?

 

Again, my opinion doesn't really matter. What is, is and that's not going to change.

 

But just for grins, I think it would be better eventually for the NFL. If a few teams have to go belly up, so be it.

 

Players should be paid what they are worth on the free market and should be able to negotiate their salaries any time they see fit. Owners don't want to pay? Then a player should be able to move on and go where someone else is willing to pay him what the market will bear.

 

If I'm a sixteen year old with a body of a 25 year old and can play with the big boys, why would I waste my time getting an education or risk getting injured in college when I can go and make millions? Go for it. Who is anybody to say that individual should not be able to make his own decisions? And if he's a legal minor, if it's ok with his parents, then go for it!

 

Revenue sharing is socialism. If you can't get enough people inside your stadium to pay the bills, you should fail and be replaced by an owner that can get it done. It's not equitable to force successful teams who work hard to be successful to give the mediocre teams some of their hard-earned money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Not sure what you mean by anti-team relocation policies.

 

Who are all of the opponents of socialism who are flag-bearers of the things you mentioned?

 

Unless you can provide examples, I don't think your opinion carries water.

I can surely be persuaded otherwise with some concrete examples.

 

 

I changed my post to reflect your points...what i should have said is, if you are anti socialist altogether, you should also be against the plethora of socialist policies in sports today, and there are many. If you are an anti-socialist and support some of these socialist policies in sports, you may be a bit hypocritical.

 

And by anti team relocation policies, i mean all of the policies in the CBA that make it difficult for a team owner to leave their current city and move to another one that is more profitable.

Edited by PJackson'sDred15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you nailed it.

 

No, Not really at all. Yes they are selling a product in order to be more successful they have taken socialist policies to do so. There are many car companies owned by their respective governments and they sell cars to customers. What does selling a product have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I changed my post to reflect your points...what i should have said is, if you are anti socialist altogether, you should also be against the plethora of socialist policies in sports today, and there are many. If you are an anti-socialist and support some of these socialist policies in sports, you may be a bit hypocritical.

 

And by anti team relocation policies, i mean all of the policies in the CBA that make it difficult for a team owner to leave their current city and move to another one that is more profitable.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion. I can disagree philsophically with the socialist aspects of the NFL and still enjoy watching the NFL without being a hypocrite. I think you present a false choice in suggesting that unless the world conforms perfectly and exactly with my own beliefs, that any interaction that I may have with the world (over which I have no control) is necessarily hypocrisy.

 

You are painting a very narrow parameter in which to live one's life - the world isn't perfect and it will never do what I want it to do and I have to live in it and cooperate with people that I may or may not agree with philosophically.

 

What is the point of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


×
×
  • Create New...