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.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why should we have to? The country as it was founded was the place we are arguing for, not the socialist place you seem to think it ought to be. Why don't you move?

Also, it's a logical fallacy to tell me that if things have not personally happened to me, they don't happen and therefore don't exist.


edit on 10-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

To be honest, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with this conversation. I was under the impression that money as power with a lot more effective means of establishing power than threat of force was a widely accepted fact. Heck, it's pretty much the underlying premise of the NWO theory (since we are arguing in a conspiracy forum and all). That the uber-rich people control the world's wealth and thus the world. I mean I think that the NWO hypothesis is a shody one at best, but I still recognize that money is a the biggest determination of power in the world currently.

There's a reason why terrorists and their threats of violence aren't succeeding in making the 1st world change their ways.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You need to define what you mean by a libertarian society. There are many examples of minarchisms and societies approaching functioning anarchisms but they were swallowed up by larger statist cultures. Which is the real issue. Ive said this before but there is an ebb and flow with societies and systems. A steady progression towards centralization until it becomes too large and then an eventual collapse. You cant really keep any system in place forever its more or less cyclical. The left right issue is more of a progression from smaller minarchist systems towards collectivist statism. The progression becomes one where you give up individualism and liberty in a move towards a progressive controlled often authoritarian systems.

ETA: They become authoritarian due to their compulsory nature

edit on 10-11-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm sorry, but you aren't going to get me to side with the businessmen from the turn of the century. Their economic decisions before they created those monopolies may have been nice for the economy as a whole, but their business practices and the ways they treated their workers was just awful. There is literally no way to argue around this. Now we have regulations to prevent such abuse.


Carnegie has a bad reputation as an employer, but what about the competition. Maybe he was average to better, taking the competition into account.

The average farmer worked anywhere from 60 to all of the hours of the week. The industrialist's workers worked less than that and depending on the farm, made more money.

All of the regulations followed trends that employers had to follow (follow the trends that is ) in order to keep the best workers.

Like the work week



Hours worked per week were naturally getting shorter without any unions or regulations.

Regulations make new business creation harder, and favor the businesses with the most lawyers ( the big businesses)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The socialism you claim to want will never happen. There will always be a central governance authority to make sure everything is fairly distributed, and they will always skim the best off the top. They will also always be the wealthy power elites and protect their own.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.


Not really. Our rights are not collective. They are individual.

My right to life does not depend on you. If you and everyone else died tomorrow, I would still have my life and right to it.


Your right to life only exists within a given government that you are living within or visiting. In the absence of a government, you have no right to life. After all, I can come and kill you and its not like I would be arrested for it. Heck, even within certain governments you don't have a right to life and the government can execute you are will with no questions asked.


That's where the right to defense comes in. If you came to take my right to life, I have every right to defend myself. But in our scenario, you are dead, remember?


Well that's how a free-for-all works.


Also, re-read the part about governments oppressing rights again. That bit I believe is relevant to the second about government executions.


I'm just speaking about hypothetical governments with my conversation with you here. Not our government in particular.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The socialism you claim to want will never happen. There will always be a central governance authority to make sure everything is fairly distributed, and they will always skim the best off the top. They will also always be the wealthy power elites and protect their own.



Never happen? It's pretty much already here. We are Democratic Socialist now. We've been that way since the 1930's. Our country isn't falling apart.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Communism is not Socialism. There may be Socialist elements in Communism, but it isn't Socialist. Socialism and Communism are separated by distinct ideologies no matter how you want to define Socialism. Sociologists aren't looking to enforce their will through force, but through compassion and voter will. Communism seeks to impress itself and stifle all resistance to it. Socialism doesn't permit such activities.


Sociologists?

Wow, that is a dissembling I hadn't anticipated.

In my opinion, what you have just said is false.


Then show me an example where a Socialist country enforced its will akin to Communism.


If you want a list of the violations committed by interventionist countries, they are legion.

GERMAN POLICE STORM HOME-SCHOOL CLASS, TAKE CHILDREN BY FORCE



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

People forget how Henry Ford essentially shortened the work week and raised wages without government intervention.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No offense, but I take any source that labels public schools as "indoctrination programs" as biased propaganda. Do you have any sources that are a bit less biased? I feel they are more likely to report the full story of what is going on.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It is those sorts of situations that require a vigilant populace and the right to arm themselves to overthrow tyrants. The Founding Fathers knew all too well about that.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well we don't have a time machine to send you back to 1776.

Do you want to live in 1776 without electricity, cars, reliable heating, available food, safe drinking water, the internet...?

It seems to me that the Amish are left alone -- I see no reason to believe people could create their own similar communities that shun all of the modern benefits of the larger society.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.


Not really. Our rights are not collective. They are individual.

My right to life does not depend on you. If you and everyone else died tomorrow, I would still have my life and right to it.


Your right to life only exists within a given government that you are living within or visiting. In the absence of a government, you have no right to life. After all, I can come and kill you and its not like I would be arrested for it. Heck, even within certain governments you don't have a right to life and the government can execute you are will with no questions asked.


The right to life is inalienable. We recognize that in the U.S.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” An inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power.

It is a natural right. A human right. Never a government right. A government that tries to infringe on that right is tyrranical and subject to their own execution. No, they won't be arrested.

Likewise, any murderer not subject to arrest in a society without government would most likely be subject to a fate far worse than arrest or imprisonment -- "cruel and unusual" punishment would be allowed. The threat of punishment for taking a life in a society without government would be greater.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If Carnegie was a GOOD employer by comparison to other employers, then I'd argue in favor of adequate labor laws even more so than before.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

No offense, but I take any source that labels public schools as "indoctrination programs" as biased propaganda. Do you have any sources that are a bit less biased? I feel they are more likely to report the full story of what is going on.


Like I said, that's not hard to do, it took me 8 seconds to find that and the pages went on forever.

However, no amount of examples of heavy-handedness is going to convince you that interventionism is both the cause of our current problems and the precursor to actual socialism which will be much worse.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Don't let the Amish fool ya. They are coming around slowly. I'm surrounded by Amish communities and they enjoy the modern amenities as much as the next person. They just haven't given in to television and smartphones, but I don't have those either.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The socialism you claim to want will never happen. There will always be a central governance authority to make sure everything is fairly distributed, and they will always skim the best off the top. They will also always be the wealthy power elites and protect their own.



Never happen? It's pretty much already here. We are Democratic Socialist now. We've been that way since the 1930's. Our country isn't falling apart.


And see how much everyone b****** about the rich 1% controlling everything and making it unfair? I'd say we're ripe and headed for collapse, so if what you say is true, we are falling apart and your Democratic Socialism is failing. Mags Thatcher has it right - you are running out of other people's money.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The history available and soaked up by the normal person is slanted towards a pro govenment perspective.

I know what you mean about finding it difficult to communicate.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't have to convince me of these ideals. I agree with them, I'm just laying the facts down as they stand. Rights are only special if the government is designed to allow for them. In the absences of government or in examples of tyrannical governments, rights are a fairy tale.

Just because our Constitution is setup to prevent our government from infringing on these rights doesn't mean that these rights always exist even outside of the government. Heck, I could easily go visit Somalia tomorrow and get shot and the country would likely say there is nothing that can be done. It was my fault for going there. In such an instance, my right to life didn't exist while in Somalia. Nothing exists to make sure that the perpetrator who stole my life comes to justice.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The socialism you claim to want will never happen. There will always be a central governance authority to make sure everything is fairly distributed, and they will always skim the best off the top. They will also always be the wealthy power elites and protect their own.



Never happen? It's pretty much already here. We are Democratic Socialist now. We've been that way since the 1930's. Our country isn't falling apart.


And see how much everyone b****** about the rich 1% controlling everything and making it unfair? I'd say we're ripe and headed for collapse, so if what you say is true, we are falling apart and your Democratic Socialism is failing. Mags Thatcher has it right - you are running out of other people's money.


Not to butt-in, but it was deregulation and lazy citizens that are to blame for those issues. Strict regulations, such as what the Founders described, are needed and we have to be willing to uproot bad politicians.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join