Socialism

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I used to bash oddball/turd over the head with his nuttiness over the Gold Standard, but now, watching our Fed and the IMF in action, I'm not so sure...

Directing the commodity known as money from the top is not exactly the panacea it was sold to be.

__________________
The Wealth of a Nation works best trickle-down. A Republic and an Economy work best trickle-up. A Socialist believes just the opposite.
A_J, the Stupid

(An Economy is the set of all transactions. Government is mutual cooperation for successful transacting. Wealth is the outcome of successful transactions.)

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In fact their direction has been a failure.

Amen and pass the plate, I really need some CHANGE!

__________________
Sideshow Barry Barker 2012 Says: "It's NOT the economy, Stupid!"It's the Birthers! The Tea Party! SARAH PALIN!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg

 

[JenAltArmy]

I am an 80% Libertarian. I believe in about 80% of what they stand for.

What percent of Communism do most Litsters accept?

I absolutly belive 100% that communism is wrong, same goes for socialism

get a freaking job, get off your ass, get to work - there is no free ride

people need to suck it up and grow up

 

[HB1965]

I absolutly belive 100% that communism is wrong, same goes for socialism

get a freaking job, get off your ass, get to work - there is no free ride

people need to suck it up and grow up

This right here shows how lacking in understanding you are of what Socialism is. Socialists don't give anyone a free ride. Under socialism you get a piece of the pie as long as you contribute to the greater good. "To each according to his contribution" is a quote from Marx

 

[richard_daily]

This right here shows how lacking in understanding you are of what Socialism is. Socialists don't give anyone a free ride. Under socialism you get a piece of the pie as long as you contribute to the greater good. "To each according to his contribution" is a quote from Marx

I think where jenin and other wingnuts criticism of communism lies is in how it was implemented and how it utterly failed. That much is obviously true.

However, they fail to take that same critical eye and look at capitalism and it's failures.

 

[berry juice]

This right here shows how lacking in understanding you are of what Socialism is. Socialists don't give anyone a free ride. Under socialism you get a piece of the pie as long as you contribute to the greater good. "To each according to his contribution" is a quote from Marx

it's sometimes refered to as a "free ride" because everybody gets a piece of the pie regardless of the amount of contribution. It's the so called "spreading the wealth" mechanism

 

[HB1965]

it's sometimes refered to as a "free ride" because everybody gets a piece of the pie regardless of the amount of contribution. It's the so called "spreading the wealth" mechanism

That is not true Socialism. That's the capitalist idea of what socialism is. Under socialism you are required to work. That caveat is always there. One of the reasons that people found Communism so oppressive was that not only were you required to work but you were forced to work where the governmental system evaluated your talents to be.

 

[Peregrinator]

Originally Posted by Peregrinator
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? [1] 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? [2] Should the state be concerned about those who would pervert science in the name of belief in a fairy tale? [3] Do internal enemies count too? [4] 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? [5]

Fear mongering? You mean like "Obama will bankrupt the US?" [6] 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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Slug_Esq
1. The basics. Defense form foreign powers and defense from theft, any theft be it malicious, deceitful, or even completely unintended as when "big evil business" "poisons" its consumers...

2. Anyone who tried to fight or deceive it.

3. Covered in one. Plus, as an aside, the writing style guide does not call for two spaces after a period.

4. Covered in 2. Yes. Disruption of energy supplies and making war on our alliances. Libya has been kinetically engaged in a quid-pro-quo with our allies. I oppose it, but since we elected multi-cultural Socialists, we get great deference to France, who btw, held the egalitarian revolution they so love, full of "payback."

5. Covered in 1.

6. Pretty easy call based upon his book, his past associations, and his proclivities when talking "SCIENCE." When government is big enough to direct SCIENCE...

I submit that this reply indicates a tacit admission that you cannot tell me when doing good ends and that you have not thought out the logical consequences, for example, if Republicans get their hands on SCIENCE. My definition prevents them from doing stupid shit with unintended consequences. Your definition leads to Oligarchy. There are so many things wrong with your interventions, but your unshakable belief in yourself, your SCIENCE and the good works of government lends a certain nobility to your views and, of course, those of us who would challenge those views and the slow strangulation of government by illogical thinking would, of necessity be opposed to your good works, and thus rather unsavory characters, but you see, we fear for your Liberty and its future in this country as year after year of doing good leads us into a Grecian Formula as deadly as if Darius and Xerxes had actually prevailed over Greece and prevented the spread of individual Liberty and the idea of Republic.

1. How does that define "easy taxes?" Who decides what is "tolerable?" Your answers have as many slippery-slope judgment calls as anyone else's. Is it theft if you pour toxic chemicals into the air? At how many ppm does it become "theft" as opposed to "cost of doing business?" Who has that authority? Who decides what is legal business practice and what is theft?

2. Israel spied on the US. Are they friend or enemy? Cuba has done nothing worth speaking of to the US lately. Are they friend or enemy?

3. "Anyone who tried to fight or deceive it" covers internal enemies as well? Does that include organizations with lobbyists? How about, say, pharmaceutical companies not disclosing what part of their budget is spent on research and what part is spent on direct-to-consumer advertising? Contractors who overcharge the government? Aside: Which style guide? There is no THE style guide.

4. Disrupting energy supplies is grounds for war? Does that justify other countries attacking us for the same reason? Alliances? See my #2 above.

5. So whose responsibility are these things? If someone dumps a lot of shit in the MS River in MN, who sues them? Everyone downstream?

6. Call it what you will...it's still fear-mongering. Remember when he was going to take everyone's guns away and make ammunition impossible to find? If fear-mongering is a bad idea, then why do you engage in it yourself?

You can see tacit admissions of whatever you want. You seem to think that only one side is a slippery slope, and I keep showing you that both are. What's wrong with Republicans using science? Your definition of what? My definition of what? Socialism? I have yet to define it. Limits of state intervention? I haven't defined that either. Your last paragraph has an immense and pervasive infection of straw people.

Here you go, Frisco, this is you advocating state intervention you like.

 

[JenAltArmy]

This right here shows how lacking in understanding you are of what Socialism is. Socialists don't give anyone a free ride. Under socialism you get a piece of the pie as long as you contribute to the greater good. "To each according to his contribution" is a quote from Marx

that is my point! thank you for hearing that. I agree that under Socialism everyone must contribute, but only here in America we find that wrong (by the freaking tards on the left).

back in the 90's there was a group that got the state of CA to make people work for welfare. however, the left wing nuts fought that in court and said it was unconstitutional to make people work for welfare.

hence, screw socialism in America as we know those on welfare will not work; nor will most of them ever work. not as long as we have fools like obama, jackson, and the never ending list of American's socialist nuts.

also, why on earth would I want to give up my pie for the collective? that is insane

 

[berry juice]

That is not true Socialism. That's the capitalist idea of what socialism is. Under socialism you are required to work. That caveat is always there. One of the reasons that people found Communism so oppressive was that not only were you required to work but you were forced to work where the governmental system evaluated your talents to be.

yes, under socialism everybody's required to work. But half of them were slackers. At the end - those who worked and those who slacked - all got their pie.

 

[JenAltArmy]

it's sometimes refered to as a "free ride" because everybody gets a piece of the pie regardless of the amount of contribution. It's the so called "spreading the wealth" mechanism

I agree, some contribute more than others (or are more valueable than others).

hence the rub with socialism, I like the free market. let the market decide how much I can charge for my services.

this is what's wrong with the union as they try to force the market

 

[JenAltArmy]

I think where jenin and other wingnuts criticism of communism lies is in how it was implemented and how it utterly failed. That much is obviously true.

However, they fail to take that same critical eye and look at capitalism and it's failures.

please, the only failure here is you

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think where jenin and other wingnuts criticism of communism lies is in how it was implemented and how it utterly failed. That much is obviously true.

However, they fail to take that same critical eye and look at capitalism and it's failures.

It's an assymetrical ideological conflict: The point of Communism was supposed to be equality and prosperity for for all -- if it fails to deliver those goods, Communists can be called on that. But pro-market ideologues can simply . . . define away any results-based criteria for success. Depression? Recession? Financial meltdown? "Hey, man, that's freedom! Nobody said it was gonna be pretty!"

 

[JenAltArmy]

again, the left will abuse socialism just like they abused welfare.

remember, WELFARE IS NOT A CAREER choice

It's an assymetrical ideological conflict: The point of Communism was supposed to be equality and prosperity for for all -- if it fails to deliver those goods, Communists can be called on that. But pro-market ideologues can simply . . . define away any results-based criteria for success. Depression? Recession? Financial meltdown? "Hey, man, that's freedom! Nobody said it was gonna be pretty!"

 

[JenAltArmy]

yes, under socialism everybody's required to work. But half of them were slackers. At the end - those who worked and those who slacked - all got their pie. I know it first hand.

AMEN, we have too many slackers

 

[HB1965]

yes, under socialism everybody's required to work. But half of them were slackers. At the end - those who worked and those who slacked - all got their pie. I know it first hand.

That's a problem with implemention and I get that. The discussion here, though, is about socialism as a principle.

 

[JenAltArmy]

That's a problem with implemention and I get that. The discussion here, though, is about socialism as a principle.

as a principle, Socialism is just wrong

why do we need more support?

or why should I share more of my pie?

just look at our welfare program today, if obama was able to turn is into the United Socialist States of America, we can take welfare abuse * 10 fold.

do we really want that?

granted, Richard is a ignorant jackass and I'm sure he will want that. but just like Leah Garrett its very hard to just say no to crack. only for Richard its been generations on welfare, god forbit they have to get a job

 

[berry juice]

That's a problem with implemention and I get that. The discussion here, though, is about socialism as a principle.

that's why my favorite quote is - "in theory, everything works"

 

[Peregrinator]

1)Imagine a see-saw, with socialism - "the common good" - and individual liberty - "the individual" - seated on each end...

2)...for perfect balance, government is fixated exactly in the middle.

3) Our founders believed that "the common good" depended entirely on securing the individual's "certain unalienable rights" "endowed by their Creator".

To "secure" these individual rights is the declarative purpose of the institution of American federal government and all its power which, itself, can only be derived from the consent of those same individuals...

...as by which it, too, can be altered or abolished when it becomes destructive to securing those same unalienable individual liberties.

Our founders understood the natural tyrannical tendencies of individuals, a lone king, and the mob of majority toward the unalienable individual liberty of man. That is why they worried enough to warn us what would happen if we did not keep close to our hearts the flame of individual freedom and the cost of keeping it lit.

But, back to the see-saw of today...

...understanding what the declarative foundational principle of American federal government is to be, the direction you allow the government to slide on any issue will tell you if you're an individual or a socialist.

The stronger weight of power to the virtuous individual should produce more liberty and freedom in every individual endeavor...
..............................................4......................................................
...which will then naturally constitute the totality of liberty for the entire "common good".

On the other hand...

...if the weight of power is slid directly to "the common good", government sanctioned mob (majority) rule will naturally ensue.

And, whereas the individual allows the collective common good to be possible at all, the flip side is not the case: the common good, once accomplished from the input of individuals, has no further need of each unique individual contribution. (5)

The question always comes down to which side of the see-saw you choose to sit.

It's really that simple.

And, if you don't agree that American federal government's declarative instituted purpose is to first and primarily secure the unalienable individual liberties of all men then...

...Boston, we have a problem.

But, when one doesn't believe in the Creator, individual American unalienable rights declared to be endowed by Him become just more fairy tale material to socialists... (6)

...thus socialists, who acknowledge no higher authority than man, look naturally to the government of man to legislate what rights individuals may have and which s/he doesn't merit.(6.5)

Then, those declarative American individual rights of life, liberty, and property naturally become less and less of a foundational principle, as does the likewise declarative principle that American federal government may only exist at the consent of such free individuals...

...to a point where the warning "the less government is the best government" is exchanged easily for "I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

The true beauty of individual liberty in the political sphere is the only FORCE involved with it is defensive. Whether another individual shares my poltical philosophy doesn't matter as long as he feels the same way about mine...(7)

...but the collective doesn't feel the same about the individual because the two political value systems are not the same. Whereas the individual reveres individual liberty for each, the collective understands that freedom to be the primary threat to its statist existence. After all, what power has any collective if each individual within it is allowed the freedom to individually act?

So the confrontation begins...

...if whatever "common good" is deemed more important than the individual's liberty, FORCE is offensively applied to compel the individual to join what the collective determines is "the common good".

My position is that that exact collectivist action is demonstrated day in and day out all over the world and the government of the United Socialist State of America is its main proponent.

1) Your see-saw analogy seems to argue for the necessity of the socialist end of the board. Do you see what you call socialism as a necessary part of government, held in balance by individual liberty?

2)As with 1.

3) Right, I know, LLand the P of H. How do we resolve disputes between, say, my right to smoke and your right to breathe?

4) Two questions: What makes you think that individuals are virtuous? and How do you decide how little government is little enough government? This is the slippery slope I referred to last night.

5) I'm not sure if I disagree wih you or with a tenet of socialism, but I think the individual is essential to the collective. Or to any other society.

6) You may have an argument with Slug on your hands. I believe he's an atheist libertarian type. I do not see belief in an irrational fairy tale with no evidence to support it whatsoever and so many internal contradictions that it boggles the greatest minds in history into platitudes (For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none is possible) as an essential ingredient for good behavior, including valuing liberty and life in my fellow man.

6.5) Well, that's a wrap then. I don't look to government for those things at all.

7) That's another slippery slope.

You see the US as the most socialist or most aggressively socialist nation in the world?

 

[JenAltArmy]

That's a problem with implemention and I get that. The discussion here, though, is about socialism as a principle.

in theory, if we were a hunting and farming society then socialism works.

how can you justify socialism in a modern society?

 

[richard_daily]

Wait... eeyore is claiming that the LACK of belief in a zombie jesus savior and angel dinosaur bones is a "fairytale"?

Wow...

 

[HB1965]

as a principle, Socialism is just wrong

why do we need more support?

or why should I share more of my pie?

just look at our welfare program today, if obama was able to turn is into the United Socialist States of America, we can take welfare abuse * 10 fold.

do we really want that?

granted, Richard is a ignorant jackass and I'm sure he will want that. but just like Leah Garrett its very hard to just say no to crack. only for Richard its been generations on welfare, god forbit they have to get a job

Jen I find you confusing. For a minute there I actually thought you might be understanding. Then you are back again to Socialism is bad, welfare abuse, etc.

You are not sharing your pie, you're sharing the communal pie. The more work you do the more of the pie you are entitled to.

The concept of welfare as we know it actually comes from the Keynesian model of economics which was a capitalism variation the last time I checked.

 

[Peregrinator]

Wait... eeyore is claiming that the LACK of belief in a zombie jesus savior and angel dinosaur bones is a "fairytale"?

Wow...

No. The fairytale is my word.

 

[richard_daily]

No. The fairytale is my word.

Well, isn't that ironic.






How did he manage to get the post office to stop delivering his mail?

I need to know his secrets to success and libertarianism.