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: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

And by this same regard you can label the progression of conservative ideas as Republicanism > Libertarianism > Anarchy. Thus the lines between the two political ideals can blur. This is why it is crucial to rely on the proponents of the ideas themselves to define these concepts. Only THEY would best know the appropriate distinctions between the two political ideas.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed.

Also without a doubt the internet has become a huge threat to the establishment for reasons you stated, hence its constantly under attack.

Right now they are working to get rid of anonymity , creating AI bots to combat posts online, and numerous other legislation that will give them back control of it.

The Oligopolies were to dumb , fat, lazy, and rich to have seen what the internet was to become, but they are now very aware.


IMO, I think the internets capability to express your opinions freely online will be taken away within the next 20 years and we will have lost our opportunity to fix the system.

edit on 221130America/ChicagoTue, 10 Nov 2015 10:22:21 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But you're being dishonest in your claim that taxation is equivalent to socialism, and I think that you know this.


I never made a claim that taxation is equivalent to socialism. I said that all governments tax, including libertarian ones.


Also, there are many different types of taxes, and while I do believe that an income tax is wrong (and is a major part of socialism), if a people want to live in a society and have the basic protections that a federal government provides (like enumerated things in our constitution such as a military), then some form of taxation is necessary. But it should be limited to as small as possible, which our U.S. taxes are not...but they were pretty minimal about a century ago, when there wasn't even an income tax.


So when does taxation stop becoming necessary and suddenly become "theft"?


So, while I have problems with over-taxation, I don't have a problem with some taxation, as that is a necessity to have a functioning government. Socialism isn't necessary for a functioning government.


I'd say that a functioning government could do without quite a bit of things, including a military. That doesn't mean that the government will be successful over the long run or that it's a good idea not to have those things.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Since capitalism relies on the ability to expand infinitely


Is that an axiom or a proven rule?

Capitalism is trade. Trade has caused motivation to produce more and better stuff in the past.

Expansion is not a requirement of capitalism, logically anyway.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Since capitalism relies on the ability to expand infinitely


Is that an axiom or a proven rule?


It's hard to say; I can't think of any examples of existing capitalistic countries that don't rely on infinite expansion so I cannot say that it is possible for one to exist, but then again I'm not entire sure that capitalism necessarily HAS to rely on infinite expansion. To be honest, I think that Democratic Socialism has the right measure of capitalism to keep it in check. So if it is possible for such a society to exist, maybe DS is the way to go to achieve it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

And by this same regard you can label the progression of conservative ideas as Republicanism > Libertarianism > Anarchy. Thus the lines between the two political ideals can blur. This is why it is crucial to rely on the proponents of the ideas themselves to define these concepts. Only THEY would best know the appropriate distinctions between the two political ideas.


This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend who posited that lowering taxes was in and of itself an intervention and that by suggesting change I was an interventionist.

Obviously, this is fallacious logic but, it sprang from some word games we were playing where I was clarifying that terms such as 'conservative' are completely contextual and relative and have no fixed definition. I had said that interventionists were the conservatives at the moment because interventionism was the established doctrine.

I guess I would say this about slippery slopes, government always expands, it never shrinks. Therefore, we must start with minimum government and clean the slate from time to time. Socialism does directly and inevitably lead to communism and fascism. Libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy though, anarchy could lead to libertarianism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I live in a very liberal socialist country and I have to tell you that I sit here on the sidelines reading these threads scratching my head wondering where the hell some people get their ridiculous thought processes from.

I don't live in a friggin communist country.
I can own and buy up as much as my little heart desires.
I'm not robbed of any freedoms, I live just as free as any red-blooded American does.

These people sit on ATS moaning and groaning about "big government" without even realizing that their government IS actually getting smaller and smaller by the day (wish granted) because corporations and corporate interests are gaining more and more control of the governance of the country as each day goes by.

Governments can at least still be controlled to some degree by way of democratic processes. Corporations are the exact opposite to that.

Your government isn't taking away your freedoms, corporate interests are.

But none of that matters because it's pretty obvious reading these threads day after day that there are plenty of people who are more than happy with the idea of having their governments controlled by crony capitalist interests instead of by way of the peoples.

Corporations are slowly chipping away at the voice of the peoples... and the peoples just sit back and lap up the 'freedom' propaganda like it's nectar.



It boggles my mind on how many people can be so blind to the blatantly obvious... your brainwashing overlords have done a fine job indeed.

Such a fine job, in fact, that I think they deserve a raise.
Oh wait, they did get a raise.

Nevermind then.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The three branches of government are all socialist entities.

The problem with American Politicis, our elected representatives changed from socialist representatives to authoritarian oligarchs with an agenda.

The USA is a mixed Society of Socialism and Capitalism. And it has been ever since the Constitution was ratified.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But there are certain lines that must be crossed for a country to stop being Socialist and start being Communist. A Socialist has to abandon certain Socialist ideals to become Communist. For the same aspects between Anarchy and Libertarianism. An anarchist would have to abandon the idea that the best government possible is no government, because that is the difference between anarchy and Libertarianism, the existence of government.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Not to mention that a system more reflective of a free market would eliminate a lot of the issues attributed to this misconception of eternal expansion. The idea is not for infinite expansion but for there to be no artificial limits placed on expansion or capital if the market desires it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those lines are easy to cross when things are in a downturn. The system relies on infinite expansion of tax base in order to fulfill the needs it sets out to accomplish (see what I did there?
).



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
What is this magical place you speak of? What happens to your assets when you die? Can you buy anything you want? Guns? Marijuana? Do you get a vote? Is there opportunity to get filthy rich?
Im not trying to be an a$$ but, hammering my country without knowing your details leaves me wondering where you are on the planet. a reply to: CranialSponge



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

Actually the way Socialism works is that there is a maximum cost that we can assign to cover the social safety net for each person in the country. Unless the population changes, that cost isn't going to go up or down. With capitalism, you are only restricted by the total greed of all the participants in the economy. It's not the same thing at all.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But you're being dishonest in your claim that taxation is equivalent to socialism, and I think that you know this.


Your underlying point was that you were trying to equate taxation to socialism. That take-away is undeniable when you make this comment:

...Our Constitution DEFINITELY allows the government to impose taxes. Having a problem with Socialism because you view taxes as stealing is dishonest...


Just because there are similar ideas behind socialism and taxation doesn't mean that they are the same, and while I cited the taking of the fruits of people's labor as being a main issue that I have with socialism, we both know that the extent to which our taxes and socialism do this (and the ideology behind it) are notably different.



So when does taxation stop becoming necessary and suddenly become "theft"?


When the government does it for purposes that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as specific service over which the government has authority. This would include my retirement, federal welfare programs, international aid, etc., etc.

When the state or county or local municipality or even direct, optional donations can cover a needed service, the federal government should not be collecting taxes for it. At least in this regard, it would allow people to move around and find a place that they're happy with--one state could be geared more toward self-reliant people, and others (like California) could be geared toward those who think it's the government's job to take care of everyone.


I'd say that a functioning government could do without quite a bit of things, including a military. That doesn't mean that the government will be successful over the long run or that it's a good idea not to have those things.


Ah yes, the good ol' railing against the military--the problem there is that it is one of the enumerated fiscal responsibilities of the federal government, so whether you or I like the military or the total amount spent on it each year, that's inconsequential to reality in America. But, many other programs that suck our income dollars out of our pockets could be discarded without conflict with the constitution. Those are the ones that need looked at extremely closely, because most could and should be dropped, IMO. Let the smaller states, counties, cities and communities take care of it better and cheaper, usually.
edit on 10-11-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



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



What is this magical place you speak of?


It's not a magical place. It's a 1st world country just like yours, with the exact same freedoms just like yours. I don't know where you guys get this idea that more socialism equates to more communism... it's a myth.



What happens to your assets when you die?


They go to the same place yours does when you die.



Can you buy anything you want?


Yes.



Guns?


Yes, after I've passed the "I'm-not-nuts" test.



Marijuana?


With a note from a doctor, yes.



Do you get a vote?


Yes.



Is there opportunity to get filthy rich?


Yes.





Im not trying to be an a$$ but, hammering my country without knowing your details leaves me wondering where you are on the planet.


I'm not trying to be an ass either, and I'm certainly not "hammering" at your country. I'm "hammering" at the people who believe this ridiculous fallacy that socialism=communism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

And I hope the mods decorate your hammer with APPLAUSE!

Thank you!!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Your underlying point was that you were trying to equate taxation to socialism. That take-away is undeniable when you make this comment:

...Our Constitution DEFINITELY allows the government to impose taxes. Having a problem with Socialism because you view taxes as stealing is dishonest...


Just because there are similar ideas behind socialism and taxation doesn't mean that they are the same, and while I cited the taking of the fruits of people's labor as being a main issue that I have with socialism, we both know that the extent to with our taxes and socialism do this (and the ideology behind it) are noticeably different.


If you took my reasoning to say that taxation ='s Socialism then you missed the point I was trying to make. Like I said, I never made that claim and I definitely wasn't insinuating it either. So I suggest dropping this line of reasoning. It is a strawman.


When the government does it for purposes that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as specific service over which the government has authority. This would include my retirement, federal welfare programs, international aid, etc., etc.


Well now we are getting into a conversation about Constitutional interpretation. As I said on page one, there are elements of Socialism in the Constitution, so I'd say that while these things aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, it isn't a hard stretch to see that they are within the purview and scope of the Constitution.


When the state or county or local municipality or even direct, optional donations can cover a needed service, the federal government should not be collecting taxes for it. At least in this regard, it would allow people to move around and find a place that they're happy with--one state could be geared more toward self-reliant people, and others (like California) could be geared toward those who think it's the government's job to take care of everyone.


The problem is that charities aren't efficient enough or have the ability to assist the entire population.


Ah yes, the good ol' railing against the military--the problem there is that it is one of the enumerated fiscal responsibilities of the federal government, so whether you or I like the military or the total amount spent on it each year, that's inconsequential to reality in America. But, many other programs that suck our income dollars out of our pockets could be discarded without conflict with the constitution. Those are the ones that need looked at extremely closely, because most could and should be dropped, IMO. Let the smaller states, counties, cities and communities take care of it better and cheaper, usually.


Reread what I typed there. I didn't say I didn't think a military was necessary to our government. I just said that it could function without one. Then I expanded my thinking so that you could get the hint that I wouldn't agree with a government that didn't have a military. Please try to read my posts carefully, this is twice now you've misunderstood the message I'm trying to get across to you.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

If one good thing can be said about the prevalence of variations of this conversation around the world is, most people agree that communism and fascism are bad. Most people.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are correct - "giving" rights to everyone is socialist. Being born with inherent natural rights is what is codified in our Constitution, and what Liberty and libertarians mean when we say rights.

If something is given to you by a Government, it is not a right, but a privilege.

I like your OP by the way. As a libertarian in Texas I am dumbfounded on a daily basis by people who bemoan leftists but and call themselves conservatives, but want a theocratic state to instill their beliefs on others / make law based on those beliefs...

I have serious issues with socialism, statism, and corporatism, because I subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. I just think that human behavior too irrational and unable to be mathematically predicted into a bunch of equations a la Keynesian economics.

I'm interested to see the right wingers come out of the wood works on this one!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Since capitalism relies on the ability to expand infinitely


Is that an axiom or a proven rule?


It's hard to say; I can't think of any examples of existing capitalistic countries that don't rely on infinite expansion so I cannot say that it is possible for one to exist, but then again I'm not entire sure that capitalism necessarily HAS to rely on infinite expansion. To be honest, I think that Democratic Socialism has the right measure of capitalism to keep it in check. So if it is possible for such a society to exist, maybe DS is the way to go to achieve it.


I'm way late to this conversation and excuse me please, if I go a bit off topic but you've hit upon a concept of great interest to me.

You mentioned that there aren't any examples of existing capitalistic countries that don't rely on infinite expansion and you said, "I cannot say that it is possible for one to exist,....."

I've spent (some would say wasted) months of my life researching that topic because I got into a debate with some people who, today (!) argue for the zero growth economic model as the one to save society. In essence, from my research, your are correct, there's never been an economy successfully maintained at a zero growth state. The reason for that is obvious.....population growth and immigration. So....there's a natural in-built bias toward an ever expanding economy.

It might be the case that a zero growth economy could be successfully managed, but it would require zero population growth, but also, population management such that there isn't population "shrink".

Not to belabor the point, the problem is that as economic growth slows to near the zero point, it suddenly flips to the negative because any imbalance, i.e., just one more mouth to feed, flips the equation to the negative, or.......emigration, i.e. outflow of productive workers, propels the economy to negative growth.

I can't access my research materials and links from this computer but my research indicated that the closest thing to a successfully managed zero growth capitalist economy is Italy in the 20th and into the 21st century. They've managed to limp along with near zero growth. And its with a pretty bad limp! I used to live in Italy and returned there 5 years ago and it isn't a pretty picture. Its ugly because they can't create enough jobs for what youth they have, (and they're at below replacement level birth rate) so many of the youth have no choice but to leave Italy to seek their fortunes anywhere else.

Thanks



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join