It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 11
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

I have noted where I got that from so I can give you credit if I use it again. Thank you.

It seems to me most people are afraid of the government. It has much more to do with believing the government can be anything other than corrupt, then being a true fear of socialist ideology.

Unfortunately, looking at history all governments have eventually fallen into the hands of a select goup of wealthy elitist.

The good news is technology. If used correctly technology favors the people over the government. If and when the people take back control from the elitist we can rebuild a government who's every action is monitored.

No close door meetings. NSA style surveillance of all government decision makers. Electronic real time voting decisions monitored by multiple agencies.

The ability to search a database to confirm all votes are recorded properly. Including a receipt paper trail on voting days, where the most important elections and laws are decided.

We have the ability to create true transparency in our government.

I imagine a world where every meeting of government, be it local or international is available for viewing on live TV. If you want to know about the Iranian Nuclear talks, simply tune in or watch the recorded program at your convenience.

Government officials whose every communication is monitored, recorded and maintained as public record, even private communications.

Oversight of all government officials even after they leave office to ensure there were no secret alliances made which end in coorporare payouts acter the official leaves office. The end of nepotism, business favors, and paid for politicians. Only the most honest and humble humanitarians, or the honest capitalist will rise to power in a fully transparent government.

The only way to truly have a government of the people, for the people and by the people is full transparency.

The people should have access to everything except a select few military installations where advanced research is being done. But even these facilities need to be accessible to 100 percent of our elected officials. And they should be required to visit the facilities during their elected terms, to ensure we have proper oversight of the military.

Full transparency through the use of technology should eliminate most fears of a government getting out of control and falling into the hand of the fascist elitist.


edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

How would you argue the Constitutions stance on protecting individualism from government?

The Constitution was written to limit government.

Socialism empowers government.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

How would you argue the Constitutions stance on protecting individualism from government?

The Constitution was written to limit government.

Socialism empowers government.


limit government??...well, except for those that were slaves and all women...apparently those groups didn't have any individualism, they were property of white men....but why quibble



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

How would you argue the Constitutions stance on protecting individualism from government?

The Constitution was written to limit government.

Socialism empowers government.


Read the reply directly above your reply.

Full transparency in government, and the democratic process. If 51% of the people want a social program then we implement the program. If 51% are against the social program we don't implement it.

No more government forced programs like Obamacare, or TPP agreements that no one is allowed to read.

As technology continues to take jobs from the least skilled and educated, society will have to move to an improved social infrastructure. In 50 years we might not even have fast food employees.

We will need some system in place that assures jobs for everyone. Or we will truly become a fascist state where your IQ will decide if you get to eat or die.


edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm still ready to continue the economics debate.

We can postpone the semantics discussion for another day since the definition of fascism seems to not be understood.
edit on 9-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

How would you argue the Constitutions stance on protecting individualism from government?

The Constitution was written to limit government.

Socialism empowers government.


limit government??...well, except for those that were slaves and all women...apparently those groups didn't have any individualism, they were property of white men....but why quibble


You're avoiding the question.

I'm not going to argue "if" socialism is coming to America.

It's a done deal, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just curious how the proponents of the USSA will argue the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Fair enough.

You just want a different style of government.

The great American experiment in democracy has failed.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Thomas Jefferson answered this question beautifully in a letter to James Madison.




On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.

They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government.

The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer.

Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent.

But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form.

The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu...


This is a very extensive letter from Thomas Jefferson that goes into real world examples including how it is unfair to pass down debt from one generation to the next. I suggest reading the entire letter.



Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.


Thomas Jefferson, a man ahead of his time.
edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Again, why are you not a libertarian?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Since I'll be on the losing end of this, how would you justify my lower standard of living?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Strawman. The constitution doesn't need to be scrapped.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: beezzer

Strawman. The constitution doesn't need to be scrapped.


You can either have a Constitution or a socialist government.

You can't have both.

Because one limits government, and the other empowers government.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I think we need to poll the American People on what a living wage should include. My idea would be enough for a woman to support 2 children without welfare.


So that single person is doing rather well in their first job then...Why should business pick up the burden to pay for someones poor choices in life with higher living wage?

I would say a living wage is where two adults could share the cost of one 600 sq ft 2 bedroom apartment, food and transportation. Your single mother with two kids is where your social support comes in.



So a used car, a two bedroom apartment. food and utilities. With enough money for some form of monthly entertainment for the children. Cable, Wifi, going to the movies, but not necessarily all three.


You need to interject your socialism here, privacy is a luxury not a right. I hope a single mother with zero education past 12th and zero skills with two kids is not the norm in this country, or the standard.

Appt 700
Utilities 200
Food 300
Car/gas 300
entertainment 100
Odds and ends 200
1800

45 hour work week would get her 20 hours of over time so at 9 bucks an hour that would come out to 1710, so is 9 or 10 bucks an hour close to your living wage estimate?



Add - Although I am not completely opposed to a slighty lower living wage and some form of child welfare. I just don't like seeing welfare abused by women who continuously have children to stay on welfare.


Once again you want to put the burden of poor choices on the business owner, is that the right thing to do?... It is hard to fix 30 million that spend their whole lives making really bad choices to the point they are a burden on society.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

Since I'll be on the losing end of this, how would you justify my lower standard of living?


Your assuming a lower standard of living. With technological advances your standard of living should improve while the number of hours required for full time should decrease.

People should live longer and healthier without the need to raise the retirement age.

Anything less than this is a complete failure. We must create a sustainable system for the technological age.

There really is no other solutions but the redistribution of wealth created by technology. Allowing a handful of elitists to control technological advances and the output created by technology is no longer sustainable.

The biggest problem in the world is private banking and a debt based currency. Our current system creates an insane amount of inflation and debt everytime we add money to the system.

Which is moronic, because money needs to created based on population and circulation without creating debt. As population increases debt increases in this system. Eliminate private banks and the people who make billions by simply moving our money around.
edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
You can either have a Constitution or a socialist government.

You can't have both.

Because one limits government, and the other empowers government.

Why, because you say so?

The us constitution at one point made it illegal to have a drink. You think to highly of that piece of paper.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: greencmp

And without social programs our countries wouldn't be first-world nations.

We'd be on par with Ethiopia.

It's the implementation of social programs and social safety nets that improved our quality of life into what we all enjoy and benefit from today.

I don't know about anyone else on ATS, but I quite like having water coming out of my taps right in my very own home without having to hike 5 miles down a dirt path to gather some water in a bucket out of a cesspool pond to make a cup of coffee... the same pond water my neighbour is washing his ass with as I'm scooping some into my bucket.



the first statement is an assumption, it is not a fact. social programs (american ones at least) came AFTER infrastructure and (more importantly) industrialization, which i would say improved our lives more than anything else.

and since when did anything other than a first world life become a pitiable existence? it seems quite high and mighty to act like we are the pinnacle of society and civilization and that "first world civilization" should be the goals of all people on the earth. look at all the problems we have, socially, environmentally, economically, spiritually, emotionally, and then tell me that first world lives is the goal or that its people are the most fulfilled.

you are basically saying "a good fulfilled life, is a comfortable life" and i fundamentally disagree with this. if a good life was a comfortable life then america would be fu**ing utopia. we have become nothing but our comforts. take away all the items and they have no happiness, which means they never really had it in the first place. electricity, sidewalks, tap water, technology, NONE of it makes us fundamentally better or happier; i would argue that it has made us fundamentally worse. they are symptoms, not solutions.

what is it that makes you think socialism will provide this good life? why is it government or economics that decide what is a good or fulfilling life.

i would say that we are all looking in the wrong direction. we want lazy solutions to fundamentally critical hard questions, the biggest being "what is the meaning of life." we want someone (religion, government, economics) to give us the answers or tell us how to live in order to achieve happiness, but that is impossible. socialists and the like (on both sides of the bird) see government and economics as the answer; government will provide the tools needed to feel fulfilled...but they already do, on a massive scale, and its not working, happiness for most is still a distant dream.

its not god, its not government, its not other people that will make your lives not suck, it is you and only you.

do i like running water?
a bit, but if i am so utterly weak and proud that i refuse to drink from a pond because the water hasnt been super treated at a water plant, then i do not deserve life.

do i like calling the cops?
hell no, i do for myself what i can do for myself, and if i cant, then i accept it. i will not call upon the state to do what i can do. i will never call upon the state to rob someone of their freedom because they pissed me off. its petty, its small, its meaningless. i have legs, ill walk if i must. i can stop him if i want. whats the difference between me beating him down, and the cops beating him down. to me it is morally the same, especially if i called the cops in the first place. my actions initiated his pain...

do i like green parks?
hell no i dont, because it pretends to give people something that it cant give. it mimics nature, it blocks the true vistas and panoramas that move our hearts to appreciate life itself. i despise that people prefer a mirror image rather than the real thing...

do i like sidewalks?
hell no i do not. i see them as another system of control. walk this way, not that. follow this path and not that one or you will be arrested for trespassing. cutting off so many avenues, so many places to explore, devouring nature one lane at a time. it creates artificial invisible walls that we blindly follow without ever questioning why

"every man for himself" only doesnt work for the weak, and i dont mean physically weak, i mean lacking in willpower. the strong, the willful overcome using what they have and are made stronger because of their overcoming. i dont think i can, i know i can, and, i will...

social programs encourage people to be stupid and irresponsible. why should anyone other than me put out that fire in my house? why should anyone other than me deal with that thief, if they are stealing from me? why should anyone do anything for me ever? what is this force that makes these demands of us? certainly not nature. certainly not instinct. nature and instinct say "do for yourself, work your will," so what is it that compels us to work against our own self interest and indebt ourselves and our happiness to others? is happiness truly equal to what you have? so far thats all you, and every other person arguing in favor of socialism can come up with. that if poor people (like me, less than 12.5k a year) want to be happy, they need more money and things and services to take advantage of? how does this benifit them? how are they made happier through this?

my one rule to tell if someone is truly happy is take EVERY MATERIAL THING from them and gage their response. true joy doesn't involve anything other than living.

i didnt write this perfectly, but i think....i think i got out what i wanted to say...



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your system creates the subjugation of single women with children. I will never support a system that does not allow a single parent to care for their children without the need of a partner.

Women have been subjugated to the will of men for long enough. They should have the right to divorce an a$$hole and know they can support their children. Either we provide them an adequate wage or we supplement the wages of single parents, female or male.

Children do not need to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. And it has been proven that children of poverty are destructive to society. So it is in societies best interest to eliminate impoverished children.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

Since I'll be on the losing end of this, how would you justify my lower standard of living?


It is called capping everything you can't make too much and you can't make too little, your lower standard of living will still be at the new set minimum so you are good...

Beezzer it is all about the masses, the individual doesn't matter anymore, so it all becomes numbers and percentages. It would be a society of minimalist and apathy and anyone wanting to break out of that would just get sucked back in with taxes and limits, all good for the whole.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: beezzer

Since I'll be on the losing end of this, how would you justify my lower standard of living?


It is called capping everything you can't make too much and you can't make too little, your lower standard of living will still be at the new set minimum so you are good...

Beezzer it is all about the masses, the individual doesn't matter anymore, so it all becomes numbers and percentages. It would be a society of minimalist and apathy and anyone wanting to break out of that would just get sucked back in with taxes and limits, all good for the whole.


No it is all about the technological age. In this system technology will eventually eliminate all current low end jobs and most manufacturing jobs.

Without the redistribution of wealth created by technology most of the world will live impoverished while those who own the technology will live like gods.

This is not the 18th century. Technology has changed the world, and the world needs to change because of technology.

What happens when your job is replaced by technology? What will you do when your fighting with geniuses just to get table scraps from the ones who own all the technology?
edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Double post

edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join