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: 34
37
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Government can't guarantee rights, only a free society can.

Neither can.



A free society can't be dictated from above. A free society has to evolve. Once the free society does evolve, it will retain most gross and obvious rights, although some nuance of personal influence will always be present.

Freedom has never been gained by an oppressed status quo. Freedom has been retained by those who already had it and were fighting to keep it.

Only a free society, with no players having a monopoly of force, can guarantee rights.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
A free society has to evolve.

Hasn't so far.


Freedom has never been gained by an oppressed status quo.

I don't think anyone has ever made that claim. I know I have not.


Freedom has been retained by those who already had it and were fighting to keep it.

I don't think that has always been the case.

Maybe indigenous populations but that doesn't mean that they didn't have some form of power structure.


Only a free society, with no players having a monopoly of force, can guarantee rights.

Hell of a caveat you have there.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You are creating a mountain out of a molehill.

Less than 1% of the entire planet makes more than 500,000 per year.

How is limiting 1% categorizing the other 99% who likely will never be in the 1%?

How is limiting 1% creating class warfare?

You speak about class warfare as if it doesn't exist. Billionaires buying politicians and creating laws through paid for politicians which favor themselves is class warfare. Are you truly that nieve or do you simply like to argue?

People will still become whatever their personal motivation dictates. The only difference is insanely wealthy means 500,000 per year.

I don't care if someone feels the need to make more than 25 times more than someone else. The greedy are not my concern. I am only concerned with creating a higher standard of living for the 99% through sharing the revenue created by technology.

Without recognizing the need to share revenue created by technology 50% or more of the workforce could be unemployed with no chance at anything other than welfare in the next 50 to 100 years. While the billionaires become trillionares with no place to spend their money, exponentially destroying the middle and lower classes.

The only reason to create a wealth cap is to recognize that some people, especially inventors and entertainers, have much shorter or more specific careers. In these instances these people should be able to profit off their hard work when they overreach the maximum wage.

I would be fine with a wealth cap of 500,000 times 100 which is 50 million dollars. The cap is put in place in hopes that we will obtain longer life expectancy, while inventors or entertainers who bring tremendous value to society would be able to retire and live out their lives at maximum wage.

I made the argument for inventors and entertainers having greater rights to royalties then the common worker in my previous threads.

The average worker producing simple goods and services, including CEOs and shareholders, do not add as much to society as inventors and entertainers. This system encourages inventors and entertainers just as much as today's system does.

You asked what does the person who goes broke do? They are guaranteed employment through programs like FDRs new deal. If they no longer have the expertise to find a better job, they start over at minimum wage. But they can still afford the basics without the fear of homelessness.

Your arguments are completely invalid pertaining to forced categorization and class warfare.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Government can't guarantee rights, only a free society can.

Neither can.



A free society can't be dictated from above. A free society has to evolve. Once the free society does evolve, it will retain most gross and obvious rights, although some nuance of personal influence will always be present.

Freedom has never been gained by an oppressed status quo. Freedom has been retained by those who already had it and were fighting to keep it.

Only a free society, with no players having a monopoly of force, can guarantee rights.


And the only way to limit the monopoly of force without becoming a facisist state is a social democracy.

Uncontrolled capitalism allows those at the top to monopolize anything and eventually everything.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
A free society has to evolve.

Hasn't so far.


Yes it has, the 1776 generation and the classical liberal tradition have made changes to society that are along the lines of a free society.





Freedom has never been gained by an oppressed status quo.

I don't think anyone has ever made that claim. I know I have not.


Progressives and Socialists are implicitly claiming that the government will set them free. And anyone advocating immediate revolution is implicitly claiming that also.





Freedom has been retained by those who already had it and were fighting to keep it.

I don't think that has always been the case.


The freedom fighters who have won were always fighting to keep the social economy that they already had. BTW freedom requires economic freedom. There can be no freedom without economic success.




Maybe indigenous populations but that doesn't mean that they didn't have some form of power structure.


Doesn't mean that they did, just because they dissuaded further occupation.




Only a free society, with no players having a monopoly of force, can guarantee rights.

Hell of a caveat you have there.


You have it or you don't. A free society is the only way to keep freedom.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Government can't guarantee rights, only a free society can.

Neither can.



A free society can't be dictated from above. A free society has to evolve. Once the free society does evolve, it will retain most gross and obvious rights, although some nuance of personal influence will always be present.

Freedom has never been gained by an oppressed status quo. Freedom has been retained by those who already had it and were fighting to keep it.

Only a free society, with no players having a monopoly of force, can guarantee rights.


And the only way to limit the monopoly of force without becoming a facisist state is a social democracy.

Uncontrolled capitalism allows those at the top to monopolize anything and eventually everything.



Remove centralization and there is no top. The monopoly of force comes from centralization, as all monopolies do.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Yes it has, the 1776 generation and the classical liberal tradition have made changes to society that are along the lines of a free society.

Sure they did. Look up Whiskey Rebellion. Washington leading an army against the citizens of the US is such a great sign of freedom.



Progressives and Socialists are implicitly claiming that the government will set them free. And anyone advocating immediate revolution is implicitly claiming that also.

Maybe it just you and your interpretation.



The freedom fighters who have won were always fighting to keep the social economy that they already had. BTW freedom requires economic freedom. There can be no freedom without economic success.

Which came first...


Doesn't mean that they did, just because they dissuaded further occupation.

It was your broad brush.


You have it or you don't. A free society is the only way to keep freedom.

Well, you don't because that caveat won't let it happen.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Remove centralization

How do you remove something if everyone is allowed to associate however they want?

Nothing is there to keep a monopoly from forming except the equilibrium point.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you don't control monopolies on commodities eventually the owners of commodities will have the power. This leads to fascism for the workforce, far from freedom.

My solution is 100% monitoring of elected officials to eliminate corruption, nepotism, and promises of future employment.

How many dishonest people would run for office if they knew they were giving up there 4th amendment rights for life? I would run but how many of our current leaders would want this?

100% 24 hour surveillance. All meetings, all phone calls, all emails, all recorded all the time. From the time of election to the time of death. Nothing behind closed doors ever. I will even let them record my bedroom activities, although I think we could accept this bit of privacy as long as no outside communications are allowed from the bedroom.

Corruption has created a government of the corrupt, for the corrupt by the corrupt, which is fascism.

100% transparency is the only way to ensure a government of the people, by the people and for the people.


Add - How do you create a system thst ensures the highest amount of freedom for all? Or is the freedom of the wealthy the only thing that matters?


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Freedom comes first, but to keep it, you need a free society.

At first freedom is dangerous and unpredictable. But eventually everyone will grow up knowing what needs to be avoided.

All of the freedom we have now follows from the wealth created by the advancement of science and technology. All of the freedom in the US came from its citizens living far away from their masters.

First come the freedom, then when there is something real and known to fight for, freedom might be kept.

The Whiskey Rebellion was the beginning of central government in the US. As was the Bank of the United States and the Tariff.

You seem to have no position on anything, if you are arguing that freedom is not realistically possible, you might be right. American's haven't grown up in freedom like the 1776ers did. That might be the foregone conclusion right there. We have no direct experiential knowledge of the benefits and requirements of freedom.

What I am saying is, that for what ever reason, some people might get to live free, and living free is the prerequisite for keeping freedom. Probably a subclass of the rich, but possibly a moral and functional anemia of the power structure as in the USSR could allow freedom in the culture of the 21st century for anyone with a bit of luck. So far in history, only the already free have been able to fight successfully for freedom. I am sure that economics factors heavily into this. No one can be free, individual or group, until they can produce enough to directly make or trade for everything they need and some of what they want.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


If you don't control monopolies on commodities eventually the owners of commodities will have the power.


Not true. Competition among the various owners will always break up a monopoly. All monopolies are due to regulation enforced by a monopoly of power, i.e. the State or some other coercive political power.

Without a national subsidy or threat of violence or threat of blockade, there is no way to keep all owners from competing with each other in order to get the most profit possible. The highest profits come from the most sales to consumers. The most secure profits come from power backed centralization. Monopoly is about security, not maximum profit.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Whiskey Rebellion was the beginning of central government in the US. As was the Bank of the United States and the Tariff.

No it wasn't, it happened in 1791.

The Bank of North Amrica was chartered in 1781 and the Constitution came into effect in 1789. One centralized the economy and the other formed a centralized government.


You seem to have no position on anything, if you are arguing that freedom is not realistically possible, you might be right.

On a social scale, it would seem that way.


American's haven't grown up in freedom like the 1776ers did.

Who exactly are you talking about? People fighting in that war grew up under british rule and those born after the war grew up under a centralized federal government. Neither of those fits the definition of freedom that you keep referring to.


So far in history, only the already free have been able to fight successfully for freedom.

You keep using that word but I'm not sure what you mean by it.


No one can be free, individual or group, until they can produce enough to directly make or trade for everything they need and some of what they want.

Most people in this day and age produce enough to provide for what they need and some of what they want. By that definition It would seem that people have more "freedom" than they have ever had.

Then again, I have met homeless people whos "needs and wants" made them free with far less than what the average person has.



edit on 15-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Personally I think you are blind to reality. I believe it is highly possible for one corporation to monopolize commodities. It takes time but it will happen.

It is my opinion that your hope in competing against a group of wealthy elitists who have little desire to compete against themselves so long as they all receive a share of the pie, is just that, hope. And I believe a naive hope at best.

The only outcome of our debate is to agree to disagree on this point. Which is why I favor democracy and majority vote. Not being a facisist I prefer to see democracy run it's course then to see the opinion of the minority rule. Even if I am the minority.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

First define monopoly. I take your definition to mean, a company that charges more than the product is worth, (and I will give you), and cuts production to increase the demand.

A single company that raises prices and cuts production will ALWAYS suffer new competitor companies. The high prices and known demand for the product means that new companies will make sakes and profit for sure. The single company (your definition of monopoly) is compelled to keep its production high and prices low in order to prevent new startup competition.

The "monopoly" you rightly abhor is actually a cartel. When all of the competitors in an industry collude to cut production and raise prices the situation is called a cartel. Since cartels need all members to follow the rules of the crony club, and not try to sell more than their allotment, the cartel needs a government to pass laws that keep the cartelists in line. All of the "monopolies" that get away with unfair business practices are actually cartels that use the government.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

For whoever might be reading this,

Culture, society, economy and government change slowly. Saying the beginning of centralization occurred over the ending decades of a century is as realistic a statement of fact as human comprehension and language can make it.

The Americans had less supervision, more freedom from the point of view of governmental intervention, under the British and then the American governments than any working person has today. A person could decide to build a house or anything else without any need for permits or taxes, and could plant and grow whatever he chose.

Production is not a definition of freedom. Production is a prerequisite of freedom.

Freedom is doing whatever you want to, that hurts no one else's natural rights.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you don't control monopolies on commodities eventually the owners of commodities will have the power. This leads to fascism for the workforce, far from freedom.

My solution is 100% monitoring of elected officials to eliminate corruption, nepotism, and promises of future employment.

How many dishonest people would run for office if they knew they were giving up there 4th amendment rights for life? I would run but how many of our current leaders would want this?

100% 24 hour surveillance. All meetings, all phone calls, all emails, all recorded all the time. From the time of election to the time of death. Nothing behind closed doors ever. I will even let them record my bedroom activities, although I think we could accept this bit of privacy as long as no outside communications are allowed from the bedroom.

Corruption has created a government of the corrupt, for the corrupt by the corrupt, which is fascism.

100% transparency is the only way to ensure a government of the people, by the people and for the people.


Add - How do you create a system thst ensures the highest amount of freedom for all? Or is the freedom of the wealthy the only thing that matters?



Well, technically, it doesn't have to be Fascism. It can be Imperialism if one man rules in a corrupt way. Which would be using the Monarchy system. Same with Corporatism. Corporatism can turn into either Fascism or Imperialism if they stop using the companies name and create their own country or start using the countries name. But, if the Corporation such as Mcdonald becomes the leader of both China, or USA and still maintains the brand name. It is still Corporatism but, with most likely puppet governments. You would look at Monarchy system in use of Corporatism.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree with your premise calling the corporations cartels. But a billionaire can undercut a millionaire until the millionaire is broke.

In this example the billionaire increases production to produce enough to satisfy all demand, then undercuts the competitions price leaving the competition so overpriced the consumer chooses the cartel for the lower price.

Once competition is bankrupt the cartel recovers all losses by returning to higher prices.

In an unregulated society the cartel will destroy the competition through nefarious means, or simply undercuting the competition until the competition is bankrupt.

I realize that today's elitists have rigged the game but it is my opinion all they did was speed up the inevitable. Power in the hands of a few through control of commodities.

The ones at the top have accumulated so much wealth they can outprice anyone that doesn't play by their rules. As long as you buy your commodities from them, at their set prices, they will let you own a small business. Small business owners put forth the illusion of competition, which is good for the commodity owners.

Try to escape the system by creating your own commodities to compete with theirs and they will do everything in their power to destroy you. And if they must loose money in the process, they know they will make it up on the back end.

Without putting some limit on wealth the final outcome, even if it takes 1000 years will always be the majority of power in the hands of a few.


edit on 15-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Culture, society, economy and government change slowly. Saying the beginning of centralization occurred over the ending decades of a century is as realistic a statement of fact as human comprehension and language can make it.

I hope whoever else is reading this can figure out what that is supposed to mean.


The Americans had less supervision, more freedom from the point of view of governmental intervention, under the British and then the American governments than any working person has today. A person could decide to build a house or anything else without any need for permits or taxes, and could plant and grow whatever he chose.

Hey I'm not the one who said "You either have it or you don't".


Production is not a definition of freedom. Production is a prerequisite of freedom.

They were your words. You seem to be going from one definition to another.


Freedom is doing whatever you want to, that hurts no one else's natural rights.

Nobody in the world does whatever they want. Even if you are alone in the middle of nowhere there are things that you must do.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73
Your describing what standard oil did until the early 1900's.

It's a great case study. Watch some John D docents ties.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap

I agree. I just think imperialism is a fancy term for a one man fascist government.

I know that I am not using the term in it's exact context but the results are usually the same. Nothing but BS for 99% of us.




top topics



 
37
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join