Socialism

[Liar]

so we have government regulation, and laws...therefore we must have more socialism?

socialism is for quitters, people who are unable to dream, create, or build

are you a quitter?

I don't know what you just wrote, but it doesn't seem to adress my post.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

So, just for the record, Government regulation have nothing to do with Socialism?

I think the phrase he used was "speed limit," not government regulation.

Take my license and all that jive,
I CAN'T DRIVE 55!

 

[JenAltArmy]

I don't know what you just wrote, but it doesn't seem to adress my post.

clif notes, socialism is the worst form of government

 

[vrosej10]

The criminal simply steals a cab.

I am not surprised to see you not much of a fan of property rights...

So, let us look at this problem the same way we do abortion and how often drinking leads to a little "mistake." You really mean to punish Princess for the rest of her life over one little mistake?

Yes. Actions have consequences. Bad actions have bad consequences.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Yes. Actions have consequences. Bad actions have bad consequences.

but in these last couple of years, American's are not responsbile for their actions. society is to be blamed for bad actions

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Human are heirachical in nature. No matter what you do, government or not, there will always be some who attempt to gain power and control for their own means. Government to some degree regulates some of this behaviour by giving us choice about who will screw us and limits the time they can do it in. Only a fool could believe that removing government is going to get rid of this kind of thing. The only freedom any of us will ever truly have is inside our heads.

The government should create courts where the screws and the screws can have it out and nothing more for the screws can generally purchase government, and do via campaign contributions.

__________________
When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.

When Government gets so powerful that its purchase price is cost effective, even imperative, to business, then business will purchase government indulgences.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[vrosej10]

but in these last couple of years, American's are not responsbile for their actions. society is to be blamed for bad actions

That's an excuse not a reality. Personal responsibility is a sign of adulthood.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

but in these last couple of years, American's are not responsbile for their actions. society is to be blamed for bad actions

Americans Jen, Americans...




If you want to be clever, say we've become a nation of American'ts, then you can use your beloved apostrophe...

We now have more Frederal aid going to households than coming from households; that's not a nation of adults assuming personal responsibility, that's "Socialism."

Or in other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Ends up reading like the Hobo's story in Dagney's car as she struggled to be the last remaining adult trying to keep the trains running.

 

[JenAltArmy]

That's an excuse not a reality. Personal responsibility is a sign of adulthood.

I agree 100% with you

 

[Ishmael]

So, just for the record, Government regulation have nothing to do with Socialism?

No, no one is arguing that government doesn't have a legitimate interest, and right, to regulate specific areas. Traffic regulation happens to be one of those legitimate areas.

Ishmael

 

[JenAltArmy]

sorry, my bad.

The question is how many American’s want to live on or with government assistance? In the past couple of years there has been a shift from people wanting/trying to live the American dream but have given up. Sure, obama has missed the boat on the economy and has made some issues worse when it comes to free enterprise.

Then again, obama is classless and clueless when it comes to free enterprise and creating wealth. We all know that obama is for wealth redistribution.

This is the time when we need someone like Trump, or Rodmeny that has personal business experience, and knows cash flow. To create wealth, and end what obama has done by mortgaging our future for cheap tactics like welfare

to me its mind boggling how anyone can be pro socialism, other than those who live on entitlements.

I’m sorry but countries like France, Russia, China, and the many others would never have someone like Steve Jobs, or Gates. It’s just that simple

Americans Jen, Americans...




If you want to be clever, say we've become a nation of American'ts, then you can use your beloved apostrophe...

We now have more Frederal aid going to households than coming from households; that's not a nation of adults assuming personal responsibility, that's "Socialism."

Or in other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Ends up reading like the Hobo's story in Dagney's car as she struggled to be the last remaining adult trying to keep the trains running.

 

[JenAltArmy]

No, no one is arguing that government doesn't have a legitimate interest, and right, to regulate specific areas. Traffic regulation happens to be one of those legitimate areas.

Ishmael

Would you agree, that a traffic law and Socialsm are as similar as an Apple and Uranium?

 

[Ishmael]

Would you agree, that a traffic law and Socialsm are as similar as an Apple and Uranium?

They're not even that closely related.

Ishmael

 

[JenAltArmy]

I don't know what you just wrote, but it doesn't seem to adress my post.

Here in the states, the majority of professors are socialist. They preach their crap, while having never accomplish anything out in the real world. In the end, the students get exposed to that mellow drama and as they enter the work force they slowly start to realize the faults with socialism. As one jumps up the economic ladder into higher incomes and feels the pain of paying $50,000, 80,000, or $200,000 in income tax, they realize the failures of government. What the well and I getting for that money? Where is the ROI?

It’s just that simple

 

[JenAltArmy]

They're not even that closely related.

Ishmael

I agree! I'm not sure if Socilist have given up on life, or are just lazy

love the obama quote in your sig line. I have to borrow that

 

[snake0067]

I am to some degree a social-democrat progressive, but any system that incentives bad behavior will increase it.

 

[JenAltArmy]

I am to some degree a social-democrat progressive, but any system that incentives bad behavior will increase it.

I think that we all can agree, that we want a safe environment that is crime free. But we also need to keep these costs under control. Examples like New Jersey is the perfect example of democrats run amuck. Where it becomes to expensive to support. This is also where obama has run amuck spending wildly and promoting more dependence on government. Government is never the solution, government is the problem

 

[Peregrinator]

Here is what you cannot define: the limit of "some" intervention which is why some becomes more, rather than less because politics is what it is and you don't get reelected by saying everything is hunky-dory and up to date in Kansas City, so the proclivity is towards preventing more and more specious wrongs on every front in order to justify the position held and keep the campaign contributions coming in.

And, that process is not going to be controlled by reason, intellect and fact, but by fear-mongering, demagoguery and a population educated in government schools, which a lot like Parochial Schools, are not going to be too terribly harsh on the motives of their founders...

And again, until you find me a better word for the altruists collective, then I'll use it, until then, I'm sticking with Socialist, because it fits so well, so much better than communist, liberal, progressive, pragmatic centrist, or "don't label me."

Here is what you cannot define:

[W]hat limits ought to be set to the activity of the state," is "that the provision of security, against both external enemies and internal dissensions must constitute the purpose of the state, and occupy the circle of its activity."
Wilhelm von Humboldt

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
Adam Smith

Self-defense against enemies of the state and a sound legal structure that addresses actual wrong, not a government that tries to anticipate wrongs.

What is the hard, logical, quantifiable limit of the provision of security? What is the cutoff off "easy taxes?" What is a "tolerable" as opposed to intolerable administration of justice?

Who are the enemies of the state? Should the state be concerned about those who would pervert science in the name of belief in a fairy tale? Do internal enemies count too? Was Iraq a direct threat to the security of the state? Is Brazil? How about Cuba? Israel? I'm pretty sure you and I agree that Libya was no threat. Is toxic runoff from factory farms a threat to the state? What about air pollution? Acid rain? Spent nuclear fuel rods?

Fear mongering? You mean like "Obama will bankrupt the US?" Like "Environmentalists want to dismantle the US economy?" That kind of fear mongering? Is "Oh! My ducats!" fear mongering somehow more honorable?

Okay. Until you find me exact, precise parameters of how little government is little enough, I'm sticking with "anarchist," because from here, you look like one. I'm kidding, but the truth is that you do believe in government intervention, in plenty of circumstances. You just have a list in your head of what's acceptable intervention and what isn't. And the criteria you supplied which I quoted above don't always apply.

Are you concerned with my liberty as well as your own? Because if so, that's very altruistic thinking. If you see it as the highest good and want me to have it, then the only applicable term is altruism.

 

[Peregrinator]

I say Communism like it's a bad thing.

The point is, SOCIALISTS (in America) say Socialist, like it's a bad thing in order to fool people into surrendering Liberty in the name of doing good.

Speed limits? REALLY???

I think I'm the only one in the Boot Heel who pays the least bit of attention to them; I sure as hell ignored them in KANSAS!

The point is not whether you and your fellow hell-dwellers are scoff-laws.

 

[Peregrinator]

Speed limits have nothing to do with Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism.

Ishmael

Sure they do. They're the government intervening before the fact and infringing your freedom. That's socialism, according to a few in this thread. Are those few wrong?

 

[Peregrinator]

How about this Perg, a more "classic" definition, "those in favor of an Oligarchy."

Of course, it always begins as an erudite, educated and benevolent Oligarchy of the Enlightened, but it always ends not as the American Revolution, but rather, the French variant...

Then comes the tyrant, and eventually, he is overthrown and you have a narrow window of opportunity in which to return to Republic.

Sure, that's fine, if that's how you choose to define it. It doesn't really resonate with the definitions I've found or the ones provided by people who call themselves socialists, but whatever.

If that's your working definition, then calling me a socialist makes as much sense as calling you one.

 

[Peregrinator]

No, no one is arguing that government doesn't have a legitimate interest, and right, to regulate specific areas. Traffic regulation happens to be one of those legitimate areas.

Ishmael

AJ disagrees:

Self-defense against enemies of the state and a sound legal structure that addresses actual wrong, not a government that tries to anticipate wrongs.

Speed limits are "anticipating wrongs." He sees this as beyond the scope of legitimate government activity.

 

[Luk]

Speed limits have nothing to do with Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism.

Ishmael

It was a metaphor, dumbass. Like when you broke the speed limit by posting that dolf thread at 3am, drunk and completely out of your mind.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www.commondreams.org/files/images/socialist-plots.jpg

 

[richard_daily]

The point is not whether you and your fellow hell-dwellers are scoff-laws.

Wait... AJ only abides by the laws that he agrees with? That makes him in line with all sorts of people who he criticizes day in and day out.