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: 18
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

I shall do my best to absorb the information and integrate it into my thinking, and thank you again for presenting it.
Some of us are able to do that without flipping out entirely.


ETA: Yep, just went to your source again.
Excellent info.


edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



oh aha Aahhhhh! You are trying to bring "economic freedom" into it, right? So - you're against taxes - and that matters more to you than quality of life, overall well-being, prosperity, security, education, opportunities, etc. Right?

I was just watching a replay of last night's debate - the section on taxes. Interesting suggestions!!




edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Sorry, your quotes aren't saying what you are thinking they are saying. For instance, let me cite a few of them and explain my reasoning:

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801


Jefferson is saying here that a government should protect freedom and not tax people. Though Jefferson was an idealist, he probably didn't completely mean that a government shouldn't levy taxes.



“A people… who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything.” – George Washington


This is an inspirational quote and not a condemnation of anything in particular. Also G. Washington approved the First Bank of the US.


“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” – James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792


This quote is about property rights. It certainly isn't talking about anything against banking or government paying for Social programs though.


“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


This is a quote mine. It actually says this:


To this a single observation shall yet be added. Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.


This reads a BIT differently than what you had originally. This reads like everyone should pay taxes equally. So in other words, Jefferson wasn't in favor of a progressive tax plan. Though Jefferson was a rich, slave holding man, I'm not surprised that he didn't think favorably about taxing the rich.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We will have to agree to disagree. The first quote is clearly talking about government regulation of industry although you think it is just about taxation. Socialism is dependent on interventionist policies in regards to industry. I guess you take what you want from those quotes but to act like socialism is what they were advocating is absurd. Socialism requires BIG government and very very few of them were in favor of that. The whole dichotomy of east/west capitalism/socialism(communism) is predicated on the idea that American government is the antithesis of those systems. In those times the economy was agrarian fruits of your labors was a literal term. They were not advocating you go work your land all day to give it all over to the government.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
nihilistsanta said:

Those quotes talk about property rights, about unjust taxation of labor, they talk about labor, they talk about entitlements, one even specifically warns against a government based upon "taking care" of society which is exactly what socialism proposes.


Oh, so now you switched trains; now it's not about race, but it's about taxes. Right?

Yes, taxes are higher in countries that have installed democratic socialist principles.
But, well - let's just keep up what we're doing now then, I guess - right?

edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Actually I just really don't care about their quotes. I'm sure I can go hunting for some pro-Socialist comments from them too. I care about what is in the Constitution. That Constitution allows for Socialism. Socialist policies aren't unconstitutional, therefore it isn't outside the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do what? Take a break your reading comprehension is starting to suffer. You are confusing comments directed at different posters about different issues with those directed at yourself. What we are doing now? What is that exactly? Something tells me you have no earthly idea. Its not like the founders of America were escaping unfair taxation or anything. That there are not reams of quotes and letters and such addressing unjust taxation. Yeah you are right lets do the exact opposite of what the people running from unjust taxation told us to do. You know the ones who built the framework for the most successful country on earth. Lets increase taxes because the government does really well with fiscal matters. If we just throw more money at the problems that will solve things.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Here's what my position is.
You tried to attack my sources as somehow racist. Then you dropped it, when you attacked the OPs source as somehow about taxes. You had not followed up with my question regarding your stance on 'race' being part of this, and I really want to know why you think 'race' demographics have anything at all to do with which countries are considered 'prosperous.'

Please.
Or, don't bother, if you're not so inclined.




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

The problem is that defining "unjust taxation" is a difficult chore to accomplish. No one likes paying taxes, but everyone understands that they are necessary to keep the government running. However, because of this dislike of taxes, it is likely that many are going to be a bit biased against taxes, even the most necessary ones. This is why the founding fathers likely settled on the idea of no taxation without representation as a measure of unjust taxation instead of defining specific taxes that are unjust. Well that is how it is setup in the Constitution at least.
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

This isn't 17th century England. I'm fully aware of what was going on then, and the circumstances of unfair taxation and the "king's ships" debacle.....Oliver Cromwell and all that jazz and then the English Civil War and King Chuckie being beheaded and the 'puritans' leaving from England and the Netherlands and coming here to get away from the theocratic suppression of their faith AND the taxes imposed without having representation....

I know all of that.

I get it.
I get that's why we have the 2nd, and why we have the 1st.

Anything else?

ETA: (In fact, I get how that's why I live here instead of England! My 13th great-grandmother came here in 1635. I've written a historical novel about her life, if you'd care to read it....)
edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wasn't going to respond to you further since all of the issues you have mentioned were addressed previously in this thread but I had one question for you. If race is not an issue then why are the "democratic socialist" states having issues over immigration and refugees? Why are they bemoaning that they are facing collapse due to the influx into their system. You are painting with broad strokes and fail to realize the situations are more nuanced then simple ideology.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Because the uninformed elements in their countries do the same thing they do in our country when they have immigration waves, over react and pretend like they are all losing their livelihoods. Remember the discontent always scream louder than anyone else.
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

oh, I see. Thanks.
So it's an immigration issue now.
Well, considering the USA (who is LARGELY RESPONSIBLE for the circumstances in the ME) hasn't accepted barely any of the ME refugees that the USA foreign policy CREATES -

and apparently want to round up and deport an additional 11 million people who came here as ostensibly refugees (that is, looking for a better life) as well (after NAFTA, you know), I don't see how that applies either.

You're presenting exhibit C now: adding to your Exhibits A and B -

Now we have
race,
taxes,
immigration.


edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not against taxation which has previously been discussed. I see your point and there isnt really anything to argue. I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Here is an interesting link showing some cost differences between the US and Norway. Another article I read but cant find even showed a $25k Mazda in the US is nearly $75k in Norway.

Cost of Living Comparison Between Norway and United States

You stated previously that money is equal to power or enables power. Well look at purchasing power. Money can buy freedom and happiness. It can buy opportunity. Just having a roof and a doctors visit isnt always going to equal happiness and all of that comes at a price which is reflected in the taxation they experience among other factors such as imports due to their low output as an economy.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Naturally, there are costs to everything. You have to be ready to make such sacrifices to make a better society though. Money really isn't everything. Thus price is irrelevant. If a Mazda is $75k, so what? It's not like that is still unaffordable. Someone can definitely afford it in Norway, otherwise it wouldn't be for sale there at that price.

I'm not trying to give everyone the best stuff. I just want them to be able to live comfortably with the basics. If they want better, well that is why we've incorporated Capitalism into the system. They can go out and earn the wage to afford the better stuff.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I cant find any sense in anything you talk about. You claim I'm all over the place yet you jump around so much I don't think we are even having the same conversation (books about your mom? Another plug from buzzywigs about being an author.). You think it is as simple as their system of economics or political ideology when like I stated there are many factors to consider. Yes demographics, taxation, immigration, education etc etc are issues that contribute to the overall being of a nation.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Okay, never mind then. I'm just trying to track our conversation at this meeting, and also overhearing what you're saying to others.

My apologies.



It's just that the data show that some countries are doing really well in all of those areas and the citizens are happy....

edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


you jump around so much I don't think we are even having the same conversation (books about your mom? Another plug from buzzywigs about being an author.)

No, not my mom. My 13th great-grandmother who came here during the Pilgrim wave, and I examined all of the primary sources and literature to learn all I could about what was going on in the first half of the 17th century in England.....and why my ancestors came here. And how this country was developed and grew to what it is now. And.....

edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

nm

edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How can you afford anything with such a high tax rate? Ok so to further socialism in America with higher taxation even on purchased goods is somehow going to make life better for the single mother of 3 with no transportation to work? Sorry kids we cant go to Pizza Hut tonight because to eat out for a family of 4 would cost you over $100 at a low level eating establishment. Sorry kids no choices for you its government hand out stuff only. You have to consider all of the aspects. America is far more populous and spread out. Our infrastructure for transportation is a mess. This is why I say it is far more complex than simple ideology.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

People in Norway appear to be affording things just fine. Buzzywigs posted Norway's standard of living, and if it is one of the highest in the world, I'd argue that the populace isn't having much trouble affording to live. As for your example about the mother not being able to afford Pizza Hut, so what? She needs to earn more money. Isn't that the answer that a capitalist would give her if she complained about not having enough money to eat out? All a Socialist wants is to make sure the lady and her child don't starve, have a roof over their head, and have adequate health care. Eating out is a luxury. Luxuries require your own paycheck to pay for them.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I apologize for being a bit harsh in my last comment. Recently I was doing a lot of research on Finland because I really enjoy everything I have come to learn about the people and culture. I didn't just look for the good things though I sought out interviews and articles by people that not only explored the good things but also the bad. In the long run I came away with a more complete view than the typical view that "happiness is through the roof in these countries yall!" and I realized that there is a give and take going on. There were many complaints about a lack of access to imported goods. Things Americans value are not the same as what someone in Finland might value (again something to be said about homogeneous cultures). They have a great educational system and really rank high on entrepreneurial and financial indexes and such but even those people have complaints about the way things are.

TLDR: Our outsider perception is not a complete view. The overall being of a nation cannot be surmised as simply a matter of economics or ideology. What works in one place will not always work in another. Myriad of factors blah blah blah



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a value judgement and is strictly your opinion. Maybe that family really values their close family meals at Pizza Hut and is something of a tradition. Either way you cant just say "well they shouldnt want those things". Now you are attempting to control peoples desires and values simply to further your idea of what socialism means and how you feel others should live. If access to opportunity and choice are not signs of freedom then what is?




top topics



 
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join