Would Socialism Be Bad for America? JV on the Dirtiest Word in U.S. Politics

About half the country would vote for a socialist president. Half! But if you ask the GOP what socialism (or self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders) would do for this country, they'd tell you that it'd send us to communist hell in a Marxist hand basket! In this edition of "What Would Jesse Ventura Do?", myself and my Vigilant Producer Alex Logan take on the truth about socialism, and read some questions and comments from the vigilant viewers.

As a retired USAF Master Sergeant, as a man that swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America... I see Mr. Sander's candidacy for what it is... a media sham... a Socialist agenda pushed by the MSM. I would beat my head into the wall, but I am not J. Ventura...

a reply to: madmac5150

Think you are confusing him with Trump.

A man with a plan is not a sham

a reply to: JesseVentura

Yes, and not just the US, it is bad for every country and the world as a whole.

There has been a lot of confusion about the history and nature of socialism so I think this needs to be fleshed out.

"Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."

-Frédéric Bastiat

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JesseVentura

Yes, and not just the US, it is bad for every country and the world as a whole.

There has been a lot of confusion about the history and nature of socialism so I think this needs to be fleshed out.

"Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."

-Frédéric Bastiat

The founding fathers of this country far exceeded European theory of government. THAT is what is lost in translation. READ the Federalist Papers and you can get a glimpse of what this country was ACTUALLY founded on.

Democracy will always end in Socialism...

Socialism will always end in Communism...

Thank God we are a Constitutional Republic...

There may be hope for us, after all...

a reply to: madmac5150

Agreed.

"It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech."

-Ludwig von Mises

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: madmac5150

Agreed.

"It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech."

-Ludwig von Mises

I was a USAF SNCO... never in my life did I pledge my life for my government... I pledged my life to my Constitution. Guess I am just old school...

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: madmac5150

Agreed.

"It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech."

-Ludwig von Mises

An honest government, is a government in fear of its people...

originally posted by: madmac5150
As a retired USAF Master Sergeant, as a man that swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America... I see Mr. Sander's candidacy for what it is... a media sham... a Socialist agenda pushed by the MSM. I would beat my head into the wall, but I am not J. Ventura...

The fact that you swore to defend the constitution leads you to this conclusion how?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: madmac5150
As a retired USAF Master Sergeant, as a man that swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America... I see Mr. Sander's candidacy for what it is... a media sham... a Socialist agenda pushed by the MSM. I would beat my head into the wall, but I am not J. Ventura...

The fact that you swore to defend the constitution leads you to this conclusion how?

I see things for what they are. Many of us do. It is what it is...

I think America should stop holding European socialism up as such a great thing. I used to think the Nordic countries were successful societies until you see their recent embrace of neo facist politics, where they are now burning down refugee camps. Hardly something to aspire to. They aren't some advanvanced group of countries. Their greatest legacy will be abba and flat pack furniture and pickled fish, maybe you could make some concessions to become a more ethical capitalism trying to keep money out of politics and things like that, but Europe at the moment should not be seen as some type of utopia especially if you see what's going on in some parts right now.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I think America should stop holding European socialism up as such a great thing. I used to think the Nordic countries were successful societies until you see their recent embrace of neo facist politics, where they are now burning down refugee camps. Hardly something to aspire to. They aren't some advanvanced group of countries. Their greatest legacy will be abba and flat pack furniture and pickled fish, maybe you could make some concessions to become a more ethical capitalism trying to keep money out of politics and things like that, but Europe at the moment should not be seen as some type of utopia especially if you see what's going on in some parts right now.

Sorry I normally agree with many of your posts but this one is a logic fail, social democracy is failing because of the actions of a small minority of right wing nut jobs?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I think America should stop holding European socialism up as such a great thing. I used to think the Nordic countries were successful societies until you see their recent embrace of neo facist politics, where they are now burning down refugee camps. Hardly something to aspire to. They aren't some advanvanced group of countries. Their greatest legacy will be abba and flat pack furniture and pickled fish, maybe you could make some concessions to become a more ethical capitalism trying to keep money out of politics and things like that, but Europe at the moment should not be seen as some type of utopia especially if you see what's going on in some parts right now.

Maybe "Refugee's" should go home and try creating their own country rather than robing someone else.

a reply to: ScepticScot maybe I've just been a little effected by some of the posts and threads coming from our European neighbors and have seen how quickly in the face of the first humanitarian crisis of the 21st century they seem to be forgetting the past rather too quickly. It's taken them less than a year to give up on the values of social democracy and from what, but maybe we should save this for another thread. Save me taking this one off topic. I still think America with its great constitution is a great country, maybe corrupted by money, it still a successful super power with possibly a bright future. All countries and systems have their problems. There are no Utopias

There are a ton of politicians who are simply using socialist ideals and programs, especially when so many people need help in tough times, and this gains political success for those using socialism as a tool for personal enrichment. The money gained from raising taxes to pay for 'help for the people in need' first goes to newly hired administrators to furnish their new offices with expensive things, and to pay lots of salaries which pay very nicely.

What is left after all the politicians get their cut aren't enough to help the needy, and after a few years go by there are five times more needy people than there was before the social programs began, so they grow the size of government even bigger, hire more pals to administer them, and then rinse and repeat.

Now we have tent cities and ghettos, and crime galore with long lines at food banks while bleeding heart socialist politicians live the good life. How many fancy chefs work at the White house now?

Socialism is a big lie. Not because it is supposed to be, but because the scum sucking toilets like the "Obama's" of America make it that way. Broken promises served like a 100 course deluxe meal. Or even a smorgasbord of broken promises and drinks included.
What is the easiest way to take advantage of people? Ask them to donate money to all those in need because people care about their fellow men and women, but the corrupt in government know they can use that for selfish reasons and they are still doing it right now.
Now they are cannibalizing social security and 401 K's and all the "untouchables" to pay for what? For the rich to get richer?

I believe the only place socialism works is within each person, not the government. The government should help to foster capitalism because that brings out some rare times a person who throws money around for the less fortunate. The middle class help as well. But don't take what I am saying as the government should not interfere or regulate capitalism, it would set the common person back quite a ways.

Don't get me wrong, the social safety nets aren't that bad. I did use one of those for a few months. Just not into the government going full on socialism.

a reply to: JesseVentura

The constitution is one of the most Democratic & Socialist documents ever written.

They were escaping a feudal system, where laws could change on the whimm of a moron. And questioning the law was illegal.

Through land taxes (and some say capsize taxes although it's disputed) it guaranteed a military, government (not privite banks), The greatest socialist judicial system of it's time.

How did you think the 3 branches of government and the individual states governments, which ratified similar yet expanded state constitutions, would be supported?

All of these things we take for granted were radical socialist ideas. Even if they weren't the first to have them. All states (and Citizens) working in unity for the greatest good of the nation.

The Land Tax cannot be dismissed by the by Constitution because a land tax included slaves in some interpretations. A fact of history not easy to erase.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 4
The Constitution was intended to give the national government greater power to raise revenue—the Articles of Confederation had been a fiscal disaster—but many Framers remained fearful of taxation. Indirect taxes (generally understood as falling on articles of consumption) did not lend themselves to congressional abuse (for reasons that will be described presently), but the Framers believed that "direct taxes" needed to be cabined. The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state's share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose.

The effectiveness of apportionment as a limitation on congressional power obviously depends on the levies to which it applies, and students of the Founding disagree on this point. At one extreme, some scholars, citing Rufus King's unanswered question at the Constitutional Convention ("Mr King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd."), have argued that "direct taxes" had no agreed-upon meaning, or, much the same thing, that the Framers did not think through what they were doing. They created an apportionment scheme so unworkable that a cramped definition of "direct taxes" became necessary to prevent the collapse of the system.

Those views overstate the extent of the confusion in 1787. No interpretation of "direct taxes" can be consistent with all statements made at the time, but the Founding debates are full of references to two forms of taxation for which apportionment was clearly intended: capitation taxes (specifically denominated as direct in the Constitution) and taxes on land (generally including slaves as well). Although intended to be difficult, apportionment was not impossible. Between 1798 and 1861, Congress enacted several real-estate taxes, all with complex schemes for apportionment.

The serious question is whether "direct taxes" includes anything beyond capitation and land taxes. The conventional wisdom is that it does not, based on dicta in Hylton v. United States (1796), which held that a tax on carriages was an excise rather than a direct tax.
www.heritage.org...

Socialism is not bad. But it can become just as corrupt as anything. Which is why we need to update the Constitution to reduce the potential for corruption at the top. We need to clarify our rights to protect ourselves from the invasive government programs (NSA).

Thomas Jefferson imagined a law that would evolve with mankind.

A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:4

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government.

I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past

Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is not Communism. Socialism is as much American as Capitalism. What the American Constitution is not is Feudal or Fascist.

As Jesse said its all about balance, uncontrolled capitalistic greed would pretty much be as bad as uncontrolled socialism

People moan about paying for stuff like the transport infrastructure and will probably say theres nothing in the constitution that demands they pay for roads but at the same time theres nothing in it that demand they build em or maintain them so that 800 bhp Lambo better be able to go off road.

Just think how much it would cost to educate a child every day probably $30-40 per hour for a qualified tutor plus books so that'll be about a grand a week in a totally non socialist environment where you have to pay market costs just for yourself and teaming up with a few other parents basically means you would be redoing the socialist part again.

Socialism does not work. Look at a prime example, Russia. The government was not designed to be the all provider of everything in America. IMHO Socialism + Democrats = Failure to succeed. I can look back and see that nothing Socialism and Democrats have done, did not help the American population. They have only provided a entitlement society which is failing.

a reply to: greencmp

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.

You forgot cities. And mass transit, fire departments, mail delivery, road works, welfare. Most people would deny we live in a socialist system, just as long as the mail arrives on time, their kids education is free and the fire department shows up to put out the fires.